THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22450 OF 2002 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, Anantapur (second respondent), dated 28.08.2000, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.343/5 on 06.02.1997 in Garladinne Mandal of Anantapur District. It is her case that, even prior to assignment of land in her favour by the first respondent, she had been cultivating the land for over a period of 16 years, and had spent huge amounts to make the land fit for cultivation. While matters stood thus, the petitioner filed O.S.No.552 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur seeking injunction against Venkata Lakshmamma (fourth respondent) restraining her from interfering with her possession. The fourth respondent filed a petition before the Joint Collector, Anantapur seeking cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the petitioner. The fourth respondent, by order dated 28.08.2000, held that the petitioner was living with her eldest son in a joint family at the time of assignment of Ac.5.00 of land in her favour; her son already possessed Ac.10.00 of land; and, as such, she was not eligible for assignment. The Joint Collector held that the petitioner had misrepresented facts, and had obtained D-form patta. The first respondent was directed to cancel the patta, and pass orders of resumption. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Appeals in the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (third respondent). The Commissioner, in his order dated 09.10.2002, observed that it was established, during the enquiry conducted by the first respondent, that the subsequent assignee and the petitioner had got the land assigned in their favour misrepresenting the facts; the petitioner was not eligible for grant of assignment; and, therefore, there was no valid reason to interfere with the order of the Joint Collector, Anantapur. Before this Court Sri J.Narayanaswamy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was living away from her son; the petitioner’s son had purchased Ac.10.00 of land subsequent to the assignment made in favour of the petitioner; the petitioner was a landless poor; and was eligible for assignment. On being asked whether these contentions had been raised earlier before the authorities below, Sri J.Narayanaswamy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that these contentions were raised for the first time before this Court. In certiorari proceedings this Court does not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the authorities concerned and, it is only if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record or the findings recorded are based on no evidence, or are perverse, would this Court interfere. The order of the Joint Collector, holding that the petitioner had obtained assignment by misrepresentation, is based on the material evidence on record. Except for the self-serving statement of the petitioner, that too put forth for the first time before this Court only during the course of arguments, there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner’s son had purchased Ac.10.00 of land subsequent to the assignment, or that the petitioner was living separately from her son. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order does not necessitate interference. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:27.01.2011 Usd