THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 24669 of 1997 Order: Aggrieved by the order of the Special Commissioner, Land Revenue, Hyderabad, in proceedings dated 19.06.1997, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.5.00 of land in the year 1961. 31 years thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer cancelled the assignment on the ground that the land had not been brought under cultivation. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, consequently, assigned the said land in favour of the 5th respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer who, by order dated 28.08.1993, remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer for de novo enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the 5th respondent preferred a further appeal to the Joint Collector who, by order dated 23.11.1994, dismissed the appeal. However, the revision preferred by the 5th respondent was allowed by the Commissioner, Land Revenue on 19.06.1997, which order is impugned in the present writ petition. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would seek to challenge the order of the Commissioner on the following grounds; (1) that the land assigned in the year 1961 could not have been cancelled 31 years thereafter, without putting the petitioner on notice and without giving him an opportunity of being heard, (2) that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer had no authority to pass the impugned order as such power vested only with the Joint Collector and (3) that the ﬁnding recorded by the Commissioner that the lands were not brought under cultivation is perverse, since the Adangals and other records would establish that the petitioner had been cultivating the lands. Sri R. Nagabhushanam, learned counsel for the 5th respondent would, on the other hand, submit that the petitioner was not even living in the village and was residing in another village, which is situated at a distance of more than 30 KMs, and that no notice could be served on the petitioner, since he was not residing in the village, that the ﬁnding recorded by the authorities, including the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and the Commissioner, clearly shows that the land was under the possession of a rich landlord, by name Marenna who had ﬁled a suit for declaration of title and for injunction and this fact by itself established that the petitioner was not cultivating the lands. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to go into these disputed questions of fact. The writ petition must be allowed on the short ground that the petitioner’s contention before the 4th respondent that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer had no jurisdiction to cancel the assignment, though raised and noted, has not been dealt with. While the Commissioner also refers to the fact that a suit had been ﬁled by Sri Marenna, no details as to what happened to the suit are forthcoming in the order impugned in the writ petition. Sri R. Nagabhushanam, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, submits that the suit was of the year 1994, but expresses ignorance as to the outcome of the suit and whether it is still pending. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the order of the 4th respondent dated 19.06.1997 and remand the matter back to him for fresh consideration both on the question of jurisdiction and on merits. Since there has been an order of status quo during the pendency of the writ petition for the past nearly a decade, ends of justice would be met if status quo order is directed to be continued pending ﬁnal orders being passed by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent shall, after putting both the petitioner and the 5th respondent on notice and after giving them an opportunity of being heard, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 11.11.2008 Nsr