THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.16121, 16484, 16485 and 16490 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These four Writ Petitions are filed against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), in the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (first respondent) dated 21.03.2011, dismissing the appeals preferred by the petitioners, and confirming the order of the Joint Collector, Chittoor District (second respondent) dated 31.10.2002. It would suffice, for the purpose of disposal of these Writ Petitions, if the facts in W.P.No.16484 of 2011 are noted. The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Singasamudram Village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, and to be in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.1.52 cents in Sy.No.146/1A, Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.146/1B and Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.No.146/1C i.e. a total extent of Ac.3.15 cents. The petitioner’s case is that she made the land, which was unfit for cultivation, cultivable by her efforts; her name was also recorded in the revenue records; she had submitteed a representation to the revenue authorities for grant of assignment; the Tahsildar, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District (fifth respondent), after conducting a detailed enquiry with regards her eligibility, had issued patta vide proceedings dated 15.08.1999; and, subsequently, pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued. It is her case that the aforesaid lands belong to her; she had dug a borewell, obtained electricity connection, and had spent huge amounts to bring the land under cultivation; the adjacent lands, as well as the lands of the petitioner, were selected for scientific Israel cultivation by the State Government in the 2KR pilot project; the State Government had sanctioned Rs.2.5 lakhs to the petitioner’s land under the said project; and, while 75% of the project work was completed, 25% could not be completed because of the politics in the village. She would state that some of the villagers of Singasamudram had submitted a representation to the Government for grant of DKT pattas in Sy.Nos.1/1 and 122; the said representation was forwarded to the fifth respondent for conducting a detailed enquiry; thereafter the fourth respondent had requested the District Collector to constitute a Committee for conducting an enquiry in respect of the lands in Singasamudram Village; subsequently a report was called for from the Committee; and the third respondent had submitted a report to the second respondent recommending resumption of lands to the government, on the ground that the petitioner was unmarried, was not a resident of Singasamudram Village and, having lands in Cheldiganipally Village, had obtained assignment invoking Board Standing Orders (BSO) 15(18). The petitioner claims that the allegations are false; she, being a permanent resident of Cheldiganipally Village, had married Sri P.Somasundaram who belonged to Singasamudram Village, and was living thereat from February, 1998 onwards, even before grant of patta in her favour; and she had nothing to do with her family members residing at Cheldiganipally Village. The second respondent issued show cause notice dated 25.04.2001 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the DKT patta granted in her favour should not be cancelled. Pursuant thereto the petitioner claims to have submitted her explanation. During the pendency of enquiry before the second respondent, the petitioner and others filed a Writ Petition before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to settle the land dispute. The second respondent by his order dated 31.10.2002, while observing that the petitioner and two others belonged to the same family which had more than Ac.13.00 of land, cancelled the patta holding that it was issued under ‘mistake of fact’. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent who, by his order dated 04.01.2003, initially passed orders of status quo, and thereafter the orders which are now impugned in these Writ Petitions. The petitioner would submit that, while she had specifically contended that she had married Sri P. Somasundaram who was a permanent resident of Singasamudram Village and had nothing to do with her family members, the second respondent had merely relied on the report of the third respondent submitted pursuant to an enquiry conducted behind her back. The petitioner would further contend that, during the pendency of the appeal before the first respondent, she had obtained 10(1) account and No.2 adangal which disclosed that she had been in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.3.15 cents of land; a nativity certificate was issued by the village revenue officer which revealed that the grounds for cancellation of the patta were false and baseless; she had also filed written arguments before the first respondent, who, without considering any of her submissions, had dismissed her appeal along with the other appeals, by a common order dated 21.03.2011, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 31.10.2002. The common order passed by the first respondent is under challenge before this Court on the ground that the first respondent had not applied his mind, and was merely swayed by the findings recorded by the second respondent; the petitioner is a landless poor; and is, therefore, entitled for grant of DKT patta under BSO 15 para 3(3). In his counter affidavit, the fifth respondent would submit that an extent of Ac.2.52 cents in Sy.No.181/2A, Ac.2.33 cents in Sy.No.181/2B of Cheldiganipally Village was assigned to the petitioner on 05.12.1999; subsequently, on the representation of the villagers, an enquiry was conducted with regards the assigned lands; it was found that the petitioner was the permanent resident of Cheldiganipally Village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, and not a resident of Singasamudram Village; the petitioner had obtained the assignment suppressing facts; the lands assigned to the petitioner were kept waste; she had violated the conditions of the D-form patta as the land assigned in her favour were not cultivated; she had also obtained a loan of Rs.2.5 lakhs under the Scientific Israel cultivation scheme suppressing these facts; on coming to know of these facts, a notice was issued by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the land should not be resumed to the government; subsequently orders of resumption were passed on 25.04.2001; and, thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent which was dismissed, by order dated 21.03.2011, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 25.04.2001. The fifth respondent would reiterate that the petitioner was residing at Cheldiganipally Village; she had also violated the conditions of assignment as she did not bring the land, assigned to her in the year 1999, under cultivation; the land was resumed to the Government; and the impugned order, therefore, does not necessitate interference. The second respondent, in his order dated 31.10.2002, had observed that the petitioners, in all these four Writ Petitions, were not the residents of Singasamudram Village; they were wealthy pattedars at the time of assignment; the petitioner in W.P.No.16485 of 2011 was unmarried; he had a pucca house in his father’s name at Cheldiganipally Village; Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.139/1B, Ac.0.30 cents in Ac.139/1C, Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.139/1D, Ac.1.54 cents in Sy.No.139/2A, Ac.1.60 cents in Sy.No.139/2B, Ac.0.91 cents in Sy.No.139/2C and Ac.0.01 cent in Sy.No.139/3A i.e. a total extent of Ac.4.90 cents of dry land. With regards the petitioner in W.P.No.16490 of 2011, the second respondent observed that he was also a resident of Cheldiganipally Village; he was unmarried; he was living with the joint family having an extent of Ac.2.53 cents in Sy.No.181/2A and Ac.2.33 cents in Sy.No.181/2B i.e. a total extent of Ac.4.86 cents of dry land. In so far as the petitioner in W.P.No.16121 of 2011 is concerned, the second respondent held that Smt Amaravathi (the wife of the petitioner) was also a resident of Cheldiganipalli Village; she had a pucca terraced building; she had lands of an extent of Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.32/1B, Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.38/1A, Ac.1.53 cents in Sy.No.39/1D, Ac.0.48 cents in Sy.No.86/6 i.e. a total extent of Ac.3.00 of dry land besides DKT patta for an extent of Ac.4.50 cents of land in Singasamudram Village. The second respondent, after taking note of the nativity certificates produced by the petitioners, observed that it was evident from the records that the assignees, including the petitioners herein, belonged to one and the same family except Sri Muttu, who was a servant in the house of the petitioner’s father; DKT pattas were obtained suppressing the fact that they all belonged to one family; they had more than Ac.13.00 of land; they were not the residents of Singasamudram Village; Sri N.P.Satyanarayana, the ex-chairman of B.H.C. Rajupeta, was the brother of the petitioners; he had exerted influence in getting pattas to his family members who were wealthy pattedars at the time of assignment; reliance placed by them on the voters list of the year 1999 to show that they were residents of Singasamudram Village could not be accepted; verification of the voters list of Cheldiganipally Village revealed that their names were also found in the voters list of the said village for the year 1999; and the inspection report also revealed that they were residents of Cheldiganipally Village. The second respondent observed that the petitioner in W.P. No.16485 of 2011 had Ac.4.96 cents of dry land and was a part of the joint family which had Ac.13.00 of dry land at the time of assignment; the petitioner in W.P. No.16490 of 2011 was also a member of the joint family; he was a wealthy pattedar; the petitioner in W.P. No.16484 of 2011 was also a resident of Cheldiganipally Village; she had married Sri P. Somasundaram who was a resident of Tamil Nadu; she had a patta of an extent of Ac.1.52 cents in Sy. No.146/1A which was under the control of Sri N.P. Satyanarayana; as per BSO 10(1), first preference for assignment of land should be given to natives of that Village; many SC/ST persons were frequently requesting for grant of assignment in Singasamudram Village; assignment of land under DKT rules was meant for the poor to eke out their livelihood; and, in the instant case, lands were assigned to the petitioners, though they were ineligible for assignment of land. The second respondent directed cancellation of the assignment earlier granted in favour of the petitioners, and for resumption of the lands in question. In appeal, the first respondent not only noted the oral submissions but also the written arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioners. With regards their contention that they were residents of the Singasamudram Village based on the voters list for the year 1999, the first respondent observed that the voters list of the Cheldiganipally Village for the very same year 1999 also included their names; the inspection report also established that they were residents of Cheldiganipally Village; and it was, therefore, clear that they were not the residents of Singasamudram Village. The first respondent further held that all the petitioners belonged to one and the same family; they had obtained DKT pattas suppressing facts; they had violated the conditions laid down under BSO 15(18) read with G.O.Ms.No.912 dated 02.08.1985; the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16490, 16484, 16485 of 2011 were brothers and sisters; they were wealthy pattedars having landed property exceeding Ac.13.00; Sri N.P.Satyanarayana, who was the ex-chairman for B.H.C., Rajupeta, had used his influence in getting lands assigned to his family members; they were residents of Cheldiganipally Village which was at a distance of 17 kms. from Singasamudram Village; and, as such, there was no justification for interference. The very same contentions, urged before respondent Nos.1 and 2, have again been urged before this Court by Sri K.Rama Mohan Mahadev, Learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is necessary to note that under BSO 15(10), even from among the landless poor applicants, preference is required to be given in assignment of lands to those landless eligible applicants who are residing in the village where the lands are situated. The evidence on record shows that the petitioners were not residents of Singasamudram Village in the year 1999 (when the lands were assigned in their favour); they were part of the joint family and were residing at Cheldiganipally Village located at a distance of 17 kms. from Singasamudram Village; they were wealthy pattedars having joint family property of Ac.13.00 of land; they had pucca houses in Cheldiganipally Village; they had obtained assignment suppressing these facts; lands were assigned in their favour only on the influence of Sri N.P. Satyanarayana who was the ex-chairman for B.H.C., Rajupeta; and they had deprived eligible landless poor persons of being assigned government lands. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the authorities/lower tribunals. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises is supervisory and not appellate. This Court would neither re-appreciate the evidence on record nor would it sit in judgment over findings of fact recorded by the authorities except where the finding is either perverse or is based on no evidence. As noted hereinabove, there is sufficient evidence on record to justify the conclusion of both the authorities that the petitioners were not landless poor persons, and were also not residents of Singasamudram Village where the assigned lands were located. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the lands assigned in their favour were not even cultivated. The object of assignment of land is to provide succour to the landless poor, and to help them eke out their livelihood carrying on agricultural activities thereat. It is not meant for usurpation of Government lands by the wealthy who do not satisfy the stipulations prescribed of being “landless poor persons”. It is because of assignment of lands to those who are not entitled thereto, has the very object of assignment of lands to the needy, the landless poor and the weaker sections of society been defeated. This case is yet another glaring instance of the “landless poor” being deprived of assignment of Government lands, by those who were ineligible for grant of assignment. The order of the first respondent, confirming the order of the second respondent, does not necessitate interference. The respondents would do well to cause proper verification of all such persons who are seeking assignment of government lands, and examine whether they are eligible for assignment, before the lands now resumed are re-assigned to the eligible “landless poor”. The Writ Petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 30.09.2011 Usd/mrkr/asp