THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 24338 OF 2002 Date: 17-03-2011 Between Y. Suresh Kumar Reddy and another …..Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Assn.IV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep., by its Principal Secretary and six others …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 24338 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioners sought a relief from this Court by way of a writ of certiorari for calling upon and quashing of the order of the 1st respondent dated 22-05-2002 in Memo.No.77922/Assn.IV (1)/2000-4, wherein the Government confirmed the order of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 18-08-2000 and 31-07-1999 respectively in cancelling the assignment of land in their favour. The petitioners’ father Y. Chandra Reddy, son of Chandrayudu owns property to an extent of Acs.2.76 cents and 64 cents apart from enjoying the land in Survey No.90.4 to an extent of Acs.2.07 cents and Ac.1.00 in Survey No. 151 of M. Bandamedapalli Village and he is also a retired head master. While so, an extent of Acs.5.00 of land was assigned in favour of Y. Guru Prasad, the 2nd petitioner in Survey No.90.2 and an extent of Acs.5.25 cents in Survey No.90.5 of M. Bandamedapalli Village was assigned in favour of the 1st petitioner. A complaint petition was lodged by one A.C. Madhava Raju and another of M. Bandamedapalli Village before the Lok Ayuktha and Upa Lok Auktha, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad making allegations that the father of the petitioners is not a landless poor person and the petitioners and their father who are living jointly are not entitled to any assignment and they also enjoying the lands by getting pattas in benami names and hence they are ineligible to assignment. The said complaint petition was registered as complaint No. 1715 of 1997 and a report was called for in the matter from the revenue officials and on forwarding the said complaint, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rapthadu and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Joint Collector stating that the above stated extents of land was assigned in favour of the petitioners under D.A.R.Dis.17/1402, dated 11-08-1982 and that their father was a retired teacher and in possession of the properties in an extent of Acs.7.42 cents (an extent of Acs.4.02 cents in Survey No. 90.1; an extent of Acs.2.76 cents in Survey No.40.1 and an extent of 64 cents in Survey No. 195.1) apart from unassigned extent of Acs.2.07 cents in Survey No. 90.4 and Ac.1.00 in Survey No. 34.77 of M. Bandamedapalli Village and he and his two sons who are the petitioners herein are residing in the same shelter. Based on the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners on 31-03-1999 as to why assignment made to them should not be cancelled. Pursuant to the show cause notice, explanation has been offered by the petitioners stating that their father was owning only Acs.3.42 cents of land on the date when assignment was made in his favour and that an extent of Acs.4.02 cents of land was purchased by him on 11-06-1993 under a registered sale deed subsequent to the assignment. Further, as they are residing separately they are entitled for assignment. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Joint Collector on conducting enquiry further found that Y. Chandra Reddy when examined admitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur about his cultivating the land and also deposed that he is cultivating A.W land in Survey No. 90/B in an extent of Acs.2.07 cents. During the course of enquiry, it is also reported by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanaganipalli in reference No.286/98, dated 23-09-1998 that the 1st petitioner Y. Suresh Kumar Reddy was also assigned land in an extent of Acs.5.00 in Survey No. 468/1 of Kanaganipalli in D.A.R.Dis.90/95 and since the petitioners have suppressed the facts about the landed property owned by their father and also of assignment of land in Survey No. 468/1 of Kanaganipalli to the 1st petitioner, the Joint Collector held that the petitioners are not landless poor persons as on the date of assignment and cancelled the assignment. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the 2nd respondent and the further appeal preferred before the Government was also dismissed by impugned memo dated 22-05-2002. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as on the date when assignment was made to the petitioners they are landless poor persons and have no land of their own and even if notional partition takes place between themselves and their father, the come within the definition of landless poor persons. Purchase of property admeasuring Acs.4.02 cents by their father is subsequent to the assignment. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration to make them ineligible. He further contends that there is no mention about assignment of land in an extent of Acs.5.00 in Survey No. 468/1 of Kanaganipalli in favour of the 1st petitioner in the show cause notice, but the same was taken into consideration for cancellation of the assignment which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the same, the entire proceedings cancelling the assignment as confirmed by the Government are liable to be quashed. On hearing the learned Government Pleader for Assignments, this Court has called for pahanies pertaining to Kanaganipalli Village to know whether assignment was made in favour of the 1st petitioner. The pahanis submitted by the Tahsildar, Kanaganapalli Mandal disclose assignment of and extent of Acs.5.00 of land in favour of Chandra Reddy in Survey No. 468-2 and Y. Rayudu, son of Narayana Reddy, the grandfather of the petitioners was assigned Acs.5.00 of land in Survey No. 468-4 and the father of the petitioners was assigned Acs.5.00 of land in Survey No. 468-5 of Kanaganapalli Village in 1994 which were in their possession and an extent of Acs.5.00 of land was recorded in the name of the first petitioner in Survey No. 468-1 and Acs.5.00 of land in the name of Chandra Reddy in Survey No. 468-2 and Acs.5.00 of land in the name of Y. Rayudu in Survey No.468-4 and the father of petitioner is shown to be in possession of Acs.5.00 of land in Survey No.468-5 and the same is recorded in 2002 also. Further, the Mandal Revenue Officer while forwarding report stated that the adangal extracts for Faslis 1398, 1399, 1400, 1404 and 1412 are available and the remaining adangals are not traced out, which clearly discloses that the 1st petitioner was assigned land in Kanaganapalli Village and he has not disclosed the same and thus played fraud in getting assignment in M. Bandamedapalli Village. When once assignment itself is irregular and was obtained by way of fraud, the petitioners cannot complain violation of principles of natural justice since they concealed the material facts. It is well settled that if an order/assignment is obtained by fraud or false representation, that order/assignment and all advantages obtained therefrom are liable to be cancelled. Hence, the petitioners having not denied the factum of assignment of land in Survey No. 468/1 of Kanaganapalli Village either in the name of the 1st petitioner, their father or grandfather cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice contending that in the show cause notice the said factum of assignment of land has not been referred. In view of the same, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief from this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 17-03-2011 ks