Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Cherukuri Srinivasulu vs The Joint Collector, Prakasam … on 30 January, 2025
APHC010181922007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3506]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION NOs:6937 and 10282/2007
Between:
Cherukuri Srinivasulu, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Joint Collector and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT
2. M SUBBA REDDY
The Court made the following common order:
The writ petition No.6937 of 2007 is instituted by the
petitioner challenging the order of 1st respondent/Joint Collector
vide proceedings No.D.Dis.E2/2318/2005 dated 13.3.2007, by
which the assignment made in his favour was cancelled as being
illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. The
petitioner also filed W.P.No.10282 of 2007, challenging the order
2
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007passed by the 2nd respondent/RDO vide proceedings
No.D.Dis/539/2007 dated 01.05.2007 by which the pattadar
passbook and title deed granted in favour of the petitioner for the
land admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents in Survey No.389/1 of
Pedagogulapalle Village, C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District,
was cancelled purported to be based on the order of the 1st
respondent/ Joint Collector dated 13.03..2007, cancelling the
assignment as illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of
principles of natural justice.
2. As these two writ petitions are dealing with the cancellation
of the assignment made in favour of the petitioner and the
consequential order of the cancelling passbook and title deed
emanating from the same facts, both are disposed of by way of
common order.
3. These writ petitions have been instituted by the petitioner
represented by his mother as power of attorney holder. The
petitioner claims to have been granted D-form patta through
proceeding number F.Dis.No.38/1404 dated 30.06.1994 in
respect of land admeasuring Ac.05.00 cents in Survey No.389/1
of Pedagogulapalle Village of C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam
District, vide D.K.T patta No.39/1404. Since then, the petitioner
3
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
brought the same under cultivation and has been in peaceful
possession and enjoyment. The petitioner’s mother also claims to
have been granted D-form patta in respect of land admeasuring
Ac.1.87 cents and Ac.3.29 cents in Survey Nos.389/2 and 387
respectively of the same village vide proceedings No.
F.Dis.No.36/1404 dated 30.06.1994. That being so, in the year
2004, the petitioner was served caveat at the instance of the
4th respondent interalia claiming rights over the land which was
assigned in favour of the petitioner and that it is also mentioned in
the caveat that an attempt was made to dispossess her from
lawful possession. On receipt of the said caveat, the petitioner
and his mother filed OS No.243 of 2004 on the file of Junior Civil
Judge Court, Kanigiri, for permanent injunction and also filed I.A.
No.1182 of 2004, seeking temporary injunction, restraining the
defendants/respondents therein from interfering or causing
obstruction for the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
petitioner over the schedule property i.e., land which was
assigned in favour of the petitioner. The trial Court initially granted
temporary injunction on 07.05.2005, however, as the unofficial
respondents with aid of official respondents in the writ petition
tried to disturb the petitioner’s possession over the suit scheduled
4
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
land, they were constrained to file O.S No.123 of 2005 on the file
of Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur, for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants therein in interfering or obstructing the
petitioner from peaceful possession and enjoyment, in which,
both official respondents and as well as the unofficial respondents
were made parties. The petitioner further stated that the 4th
respondent who also claimed assignment, did not have any right
over the subject land and that by tampering revenue records, her
name was mutated as if she was granted assignment patta and
that there was never any such assignment made. That being so,
the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar visited the subject property on
21.03.2007 while petitioner was conducting agricultural
operations and informed that the 1st respondent cancelled the
assignment, thereby the petitioner was sought to be
dispossessed. Upon collecting the copy of the order dated
13.03.2007, passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner was
constrained to file Writ Petition No.6937 of 2007. Initially, the writ
petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 18.07.2007, at
the admission stage. Against which, petitioner preferred Writ
Appeal No.876 of 2007, wherein the division bench by order
dated 22.01.2009 has set aside the order of the learned Single
5
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
Judge on the ground that the same was passed despite the
official respondents seeking time to file counter and remanded
the matter back for fresh consideration upon the respondents
filing counters.
4. The petitioner was also constrained to file W.P.No.10282 of
2007 challenging the orders passed by the 2nd respondent/RDO,
Kandukur by which Pattadar passbook and title deed granted in
favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled in furtherance to the
orders passed by 1st respondent/ Joint Collector dated
13.03.2007. This court by interim order dated 07.05.2007
directed the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land
until further orders.
5. The petitioner assails the order of the 1st respondent/Joint
Collector on the ground that the impugned order which
purportedly was passed in exercise of the powers under Board
Standing Orders (in short, ‘BSO’) 15 (18) (1) does not set out or
provide any reasons or recorded satisfaction for exercising such
powers and coming to conclusion that patta granted in favour of
the petitioner was liable for cancellation on mistake of
fact/misrepresentation The other ground urged is that patta
6
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
granted in favour of the petitioner was upon proper inquiry and
whereas patta alleged to have been granted in favour of the 4th
respondent was based on fabricated documents and there never
existed any such patta therefore question of misrepresentation or
mistake of fact does not arise.
6. Counter has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1
to 3 through the Tahsildar, inter-alia stating that originally the 4th
respondent was granted patta vide proceedings No.F.Dis
No.18/1395 dated 02.07.1985 and that she was in possession
and enjoyment of the same. Without cancelling the said patta,
mistakenly or on misrepresentation another patta was granted in
favour of the petitioner by the then MRO vide proceedings
F.Dis.No.38/1404 dated 30.06.1994, and apparently the same
was granted in favour of the petitioner who was residing in United
States of America (USA), aided by the then VAO viz.,
Sri.P.Satyaramanayudu, who is related to the petitioner. As it was
found that the then VAO with malafide intention, mislead the
revenue officials in issuing patta in favour of the petitioner, who
was then working as software engineer in USA and as that he
was not eligible for grant of patta, the same being irregular grant,
the 1st respondent based on the reports of MRO and RDO rightly
7
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
issued show cause notice dated 28.10.2005 calling for
explanation as to why the assignment granted, should not be
cancelled for material irregularity and mistake of fact/
misrepresentation of fact. The 1st respondent thereafter passed
impugned order and cancelled the assignment made in favour of
the petitioner by assigning proper reasons which cannot be found
fault with.
7. The 4th respondent also filed counter supporting impugned
order dated 13.03.2007 and consequential order of the RDO
dated 01.05.2007, cancelling pattadar passbook and title deed of
the petitioner. It is contented in the counter that the 4th
respondent was initially granted assignment on 02.07.1985 and
ever since she has been in possession and enjoyment of the
same. Without cancelling the same the respondent No.3 was not
justified in reassigning the same land in favour of the petitioner,
and the same is invalid. Therefore, it is further stated that
reassignment made in favour of the petitioner was on account of
misrepresentation of fact and by playing fraud which was
facilitated by the then VAO, hence, such reassignment is illegal.
The 1st respondent having noticed the above irregularity, has
rightly cancelled the same by impugned order and after
8
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
conducting proper enquiry and consequently even pattadar
passbook and title deed issued to the petitioners were cancelled,
which is only consequential action.
8. Heard Sri.A.V.N.Yashwant, learned counsel representing
Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner on
record, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
appearing for the respondents and Sri. Madhava Rao Nalluri,
learned counsel for 4th respondent.
9. The Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
impugned order of Joint Collector cancelling the assignment is
illegal and does not express his satisfaction as to how the
assignment made in his favour is on account of either
misrepresentation of fact or mistake of fact, much less alleged
fraud. He further contended that it does not indicate that he had
applied his mind to the aforesaid facts and therefore in the
absence of which the same cannot said to be passed on
independent application of mind and rather it was on the reports
alleged to have been submitted by the MRO and Tahsildar. He
further contends that Joint Collector could not have exercised
powers under BSO 15 (18) nearly after 12 years, after such
length of time to cancel the patta granted in his favour. He further
9
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
contends that there is no material placed on record to show that
the 4th respondent was issued patta with respect to the same
property and the so called patta alleged to have been issued on
02.07.1985 is fabricated and never seen the light of the day. In so
far as the cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed are
concerned, the petitioner would contend that the
2nd respondent/ RDO has no power to entertain appeal for
cancellation of passbook and title deed and placed reliance on
the judgment rendered in Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue
Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and
Ors1.
10. Opposing the writ petitions, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader contended that initially land admeasuring
Ac.5.00 in survey No.389/1 of Pedagogulapalli Village was
assigned in favour of the 4th respondent vide proceedings
No.F.Dis No.18/1395 dated 02.07.1985. The 4th respondent was
cultivating the said land and she was in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the same. However, without cancelling the same, at
the intervention of the then VAO, Sri. P.Satyanarayananayudu,
who is a relative to the petitioner, the very same land has been
1
MANU/AP/0389/2015
10
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
once again assigned in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings
No. F.Dis.No.38/1404 dated 30.06.1994. Therefore, when the
subject land already has been assigned until and unless the
same is cancelled and resumed, question of reassigning the
same to others does not arise. Therefore, any assignment made
in favour of the petitioner would be irregular assignment and
secondly, that reassignment made in favour of the petitioner was
with mala fide intention and as the then VAO, mislead the
revenue Officials and got patta issued in favour of the petitioner
because of his proximity to him and that as petitioner was
residing in USA, working as software engineer, he was otherwise
not eligible in claiming the patta. Therefore, it was contended that
any patta granted on such irregularity is amenable for
cancellation and BSO being the administrative instructions, the
1st respondent is always empowered to cancel such irregular
pattas, if it is found that the same are issued on mistake of fact or
on misrepresentation, particularly to person otherwise not eligible.
It is also contended that even the petitioner filed O.S.No.123 of
2005, on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur, claiming
that the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment was sought to be
disturbed by the official and unofficial respondents and sought for
11
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
permanent injunction, in which I.A.No.1602 of 2005 filed for
temporary injunction, upon contesting, came to be dismissed by
order dated 29.09.2006, which clearly goes against the petitioner.
Therefore, the Joint Collector has rightly conducted enquiry and
passed order of cancellation. Lastly, it is contended that the order
passed by the Joint Collector under BSO 15 (18) is appealable
before Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue under clause (2),
thereby the petitioner has effective alternative remedy, therefore,
these writ petitions do not deserve any merit and be dismissed.
11. Sri.Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the 4th
respondent contended that the Joint Collector is also competent
to exercise powers under BSO 15 (18) (1) to cancel the
assignment made on the ground of mistake of fact, if he is
satisfied that there has been any misrepresentation and that there
is no limitation as such prescribed for exercising such power. The
Joint Collector who is distributed with the work of the Collector, is
equally competent to exercise powers under aforesaid clause.
Therefore, in the present case the 1st respondent having noticed
that the assignment made in favour of the petitioner was on the
count of misrepresentation of fact/mistake of fact, has rightly
initiated proceedings for cancellation of the assignment and
12
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
having given opportunity to the petitioner, passed final order of
cancellation. He further contended that though the petitioner had
knowledge of issuance of show cause notice, which is clearly
discernible from pleadings in O.S No.123 of 2005 and I.A.
No.1602 of 2005 he chose not to participate in the enquiry, hence
cannot be said that the impugned order was passed in violation of
principles of natural justice. He would in support of the above
contentions, regarding exercise of power under BSO 15 (18) (1),
placed reliance on Judgment in M.Rami Reddy Vs Special
Commissioner of Land Revenue 2 and M. Radha Krishnaiah
and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors 3 (
W.P.No.8277 of 2021).
12. The undisputed facts emanating from the record for
disposal of these two writ petitions are as under:
13. At the instance of the petitioner, an extent of Ac.05.00 in
Survey No. 389/1 of Pedagogulapalle village was assigned vide
proceedings No.F.Dis.No.38/1404 dated 30.06.1994 and
consequently he was granted passbook and title deed. So also
the petitioner’s mother was assigned an extent of Ac.1.87 cents
2
2006(6)ALT90
3
MANU/AP/0811/2021
13
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
and Ac.3.29 cents lands in Survey Number 389/2 and 387
respectively, total admeasuring (Ac.5.16 cents) of the same
village by the proceedings No.F.Dis.No.36/1404 dated
30.06.1994. Later on, the 4th respondent sent caveat notice to the
petitioner interalia claiming that she being landless poor was also
granted D – form patta for the very same land way back in the
year 1985, that she was in possession and enjoyment and as the
petitioner who was residing in USA, was proclaiming basing on
certain documents to be having rights over the subject property
got issued the same. Then, the petitioner and his mother filed
O.S.No.243 of 2004 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri, for
permanent injunction against the 4th respondent herein and
others, in which I.A. No.1182 of 2004 was also filed and said
Court granted ad-interim injunction. Subsequently, the petitioner
and his mother also filed O.S No.123 of 2005 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge Court, Kandukur, against the official respondents and
unofficial respondents for permanent injunction, in which I.A.
No.1602 of 2005 was filed for temporary injunction and the said
Court dismissed the said I.A. refusing to grant interim injunction.
When the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar visited petitioner’s land on
21.03.2007 and informed his mother that in pursuance to the
14
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
order passed by the 1st respondent dated 13.03.2007, the
assignment granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and
necessary steps were being taken to take possession of the
subject land, the petitioner immediately filed W.P.No.6937 of
2007. As the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated
13.03.2007, while cancelling the assignment, had also directed
the 2nd respondent/RDO to cancel pattadar passbook and title
deed initiating suomotu appeal, by orders dated 01.05.2007 the
pattadar passbook and title deed were cancelled and aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner has filed WP No.10282 of 2007.
14. The main contention of the petitioner is that the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction under BSO 15 (18) by the 1st respondent
after a lapse of 12 years for cancellation of assignment is barred
by limitation. Though the said BSO does not prescribe any
specific period of limitation, a reasonable time has to be read into
for the purpose of exercising such powers. Admittedly, in the
present case the assignment in favour of the petitioner was
granted on 30.06.1994 and show cause notice was issued on
28.10.2005 exercising powers under BSO 15 (18) (1) proposing
to cancel the same on the ground that the said assignment was
made on mistake of fact and misrepresentation and thereafter by
15
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
way of impugned order dated 13.03.2007 assignment was
cancellation. From the aforesaid dates, show cause notice was
issued nearly after 11 years, proposing to cancel the assignment
on the ground of misrepresentation and mistake of fact. For better
appreciation of aforesaid contention, BSO 15 (18) (1) is extracted
as under:
“18. Revision:-(1): The order of the authority making
the assignment, if no appeal is presented, or of the
appellate authority, if an appeal is disposed of is final
and no second appeal shall be admitted. But if, at any
time after the passing of the original or appellate
decision, the collector is satisfied that there has been a
material irregularity in the procedure or that the
decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded
the powers of the officer who passed it or that it was
passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or
mis- representation he may set aside, cancel or in any
way modify the decision passed by an officer sub-
ordinate to him. No order should be reversed or
modified adversely to the respondent without giving the
respondent a notice to show cause against the action
proposed to be taken adversely to him.”
15. A reading of the said clause goes to show that the collector
is empowered to exercise revisional powers under the following
circumstances, if he is satisfied.
16
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
a. That material irregularity in the procedure,
b. Decision was grossly inequitable,
c. Had exceeded the powers of the officer,
d. Order passed under mistake of fact or owing to fraud or
misrepresentation.
16. While exercising such powers and upon satisfying that the
case falls under any of the afforded stated categories, he is
empowered to either set aside, cancel or modify any of such
decision made by officers subordinate to him. The said provisions
does not specify or prescribe or restrict with any limitation to
exercise such power. The issue as to whether the revisional
powers be exercised by collector on the grounds of fraud and
misrepresentation circumscribed with any period of limitation fell
for consideration in M.Rami Reddy Vs Special Commissioner
of Land Revenue (supra). Following judgment rendered in
Re.P.Shyam Rao (1984 (2) ALT 386), this Court had held as
under:
“9. There is no dispute that if the jurisdiction is
exercised for cancellation of patta on grounds of fraud
and misrepresentation, BSO does not prescribe any
limitation for exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
17
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
10. In Re P. Shyam Rao (2 supra), the facts are the
following. In the year 1968, land was assigned to six
persons on the basis that they were landless poor
persons. Harizans of the village made a
representation to the Joint Collector alleging that the
land was assigned illegally and that assignees are not
landless poor persons. Therefore, Joint Collector,
Warangal, issued notice to the petitioners, conducted
enquiry and by order, dated 07-11 -1983, cancelled
the assignment. The petitioners then moved an
application before the Joint Collector for re-hearing,
which was denied. Therefore, a writ petition is filed
before this Court by all the persons, whose
assignment was cancelled. The principal submission
in challenge to the cancellation was that the Joint
Collector erred in exercising powers under Section
166-B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act
after long length of time. Reliance was placed on the
Judgment of this Court in A Kodanda Rao v.
Government of A.P. 1981 (2) ALT 280 : 1981 (2) APLJ
158. and State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha . This
Court, however, rejected the submission holding that
when fraud is played on the State, it becomes the duty
of the authority to take action immediately after
detecting the fraud. The relevant observations are as
under.
Where no innocent third party interests have crept in
and where the nature of fraud or misrepresentation is
18
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007so glaring and patent carrying out for judicial
correction and where the assignee himself was a privy
to the fraud played on the State, it becomes the duty
of the authority to take action immediately the fraud is
detected and discovered. It is for that reason the
Statute gave power without reference to any time limit.
The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
reported in A. Kodanda Rao (4 supra) is one rendered
under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and
Convention into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and strictly
speaking will be of no use in this context. Even
otherwise, I am not in a position to agree with the
argument that the legal concept of reasonable time is
the same as the ordinary physical concept of time.
This Court should not support the contention which will
have the effect of alienating any Government land in
favour of those who having more than 13 to 20 acres
each had obtained assignments on the basis that they
were landless poor. The theory of arbitrary
cancellation and the improper exercise of jurisdiction,
are all in my opinion, inapplicable to a case of this
nature. This must have been the real reason why the
assignees had never appeared before the Tahsildar
and never contested the matter before him in spite of
the service of notices on them. Having thus
deliberately avoided the inquiry conducted by the
Tahsildar, the assignees cannot now be heard to say
that the inquiry itself was illegal and arbitrary.”
19
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
17. In Telladarla Obanna @ Obaiah v. Government of A.P.
and others4, following the above principle in M.Rami Reddy’s
case (supra 2), held as under:
“9. The submission that exercise of power after
lapse of thirty years cannot be accepted. Para 18 of
Board Standing Orders (BSO) was amended by the
Government in G.O.Ms.No.912 (Revenue-B)
Department, dated 02.08.1985, provides revision
without any limitation, when the assignment suffers from
material irregularity or that the decision was grossly
inequitable or that the, assignment was obtained by
fraud. In a recent judgment in M.Rami Reddy (supra),
this Court considered this aspect of the matter and held
that when any assignment was obtained by
misrepresentation, the authorities are justified in
cancelling the assignment at any point of time.”
18. This Court in M.Radha Krishnaiah v. The State of
Andhra Pradesh 5 , held that in the absence of any limitation
prescribed under BSO 15 (18) (1), there is no fetter in exercising
power of suomotu revision, particularly in cases of fraud,
misrepresentation and mistake of fact. This court finds that the
only provision available for correcting or rectifying the decision
taken while issuing orders of granting assignment patta in
4
2007 (1) APLJ 154 (HC)
5
W.P. No.8277 of 2021, order dated 16.08.2021
20
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
particular which were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or
mistake of fact is to exercise suomotu power of revision under
BSO 15 (18) by collector.
19. In the light of the above enunciation of law, this Court has
to test as to whether the assignment made in favour of the
petitioner was on the count of fraud, misrepresentation/mistake of
facts for the purpose of exercise of revisional powers. The show
cause notice was issued alleging material irregularity on count of
mistake of fact/misrepresentation of fact in as much as the
subject land was already assigned in favour of the 4th respondent
way back on 02.07.1985 and that the petitioner who is residing in
USA and working as software engineer, was not eligible for grant
of assignment which apparently was on misrepresentation of fact.
Though the petitioner was served with show cause notice, he
chosen not to submit explanation, rather he and his mother filed
O.S.No.125 of 2005, in which they pleaded knowledge of official
respondents proposing to cancel the assignments and suffered
order dated 29.09.2006 in I.A.No.1602 of 2005, refusing grant of
temporary injunction. The 1st respondent, though tried to serve
show cause notice on the petitioner, as he was residing in USA,
notice could not be served. Therefore, it is stated that substitute
21
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
service was carried out by affixing notice on the land and a report
was also furnished by MRO dated 15.12.2005 to that effect. Be
that as it may in the suit filed the petitioner himself pleaded
knowledge of assignment being cancelled, so it can be inferred
that he was very much aware of the proceedings before 1st
respondent. The 1st respondent, considering the fact that there
was already assignment in favour of the 4th respondent, basing
on which her name was entered in 10 (1) adangal vide patta
No.681 and further that as per the report of MRO and RDO, firstly
the petitioner was ineligible for grant of patta inasmuch as he was
residing in USA and working as software engineer which was
misrepresented and secondly that the assignment was made in
his favour at the instance of the then VAO, who is a close relative
of the petitioner by suppressing existence of assignment in favour
of the 4th respondent, besides considering the refusal of grant of
temporary injunction by the civil Court, cancelled the assignment.
This Court finds that the 1st respondent had based his satisfaction
primarily on three counts. The reports of MRO and RDO, on
verification of records and as well as field indicated that there was
initially assignment made in favour of the 4th respondent way
back on 02.07.1985 and that the 4th respondent name was
22
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
already entered in the revenue records incorporating her name,
which ought to have been looked into when assignment proposal
was recommended and forwarded by the then VAO who was
instrumental in reassigning, which clearly is mistake of fact.
Further the petitioner claimed assignment as landless poor
person though he was working as software engineer and residing
in USA was granted benefit, which is clear case of
misrepresentation. The petitioner further with the aid of the then
VAO, P.Satyanarayananayudu, who was closely related to him,
with malafide intention knowingly that the subject land was
already assigned in favour of the 4th respondent, without
cancelling the same, got it reassigned in his favour and as if the
land vested with the Government, which amounts to fraud and
misrepresentation. The petitioner is conveniently silent as to
whether he is landless poor person and entitled for assignment
under BSO 15 and the 1st respondent also found that his mother
was also granted assignment to an extent of Ac.5.16 cents.
Therefore, he is clearly not eligible to claim assignment. Besides
this, petitioner and his mother though having knowledge of
issuance of show cause notice and parallelly pursuing the
O.S.No.123 of 2005, chose not to participate in the inquiry.
23
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
Therefore, the 1st respondent having satisfied that the ample
opportunity was given to the petitioner, proceeded with the matter
and recorded satisfaction on the aspects of material irregularity,
in particular misrepresentation of fact and mistake of fact. This
Court has taken view that when the assignment was obtained by
playing fraud or misrepresentation, the competent jurisdictional
authority is competent enough to initiate enquiry for cancellation
of patta at anytime. [refer to para 10 of M.Rami Reddy
Judgement (supra)]. As the 1st respondent recorded satisfaction
that the petitioner who was granted assignment obtained benefit
by way of misrepresentation and that this Court finds such
satisfaction recorded to be valid, besides, the sequence narrated
above as found from the record also indicate that the petitioner
and the then VAO have deliberately secured the benefit which is
nothing but an act of fraud and as fraud unravels everything the
petitioner who obtained benefit by such misrepresentation and
fraud cannot be allowed to retain the same.
20. The other contention of the petitioner is that the order
passed by the 1st respondent does not indicate application of
mind and recording of satisfaction and therefore is illegal, in the
light of the above findings, the same does not stand merit. The
24
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
impugned order clearly indicates the application of mind both
from the perspective of verification of records and also
examination of reports submitted by MRO and RDO, therefore
there is no infirmity in the said decision.
21. Insofar as the contention raised by the petitioner that the
assignment patta granted in favour of the 4th respondent is not
verifiable from the records and apparently the same has been
brought into existence by manipulation of records and that there
was never such patta granted, though assertion has been made
to that effect which was denied by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in
the counter affidavit. Except vague assertion, there is nothing on
record to even remotely suggest that the assignment granted in
favour of the 4th respondent was nonexistent. All the records and
reports of MRO and RDO and revisional authority besides the 4th
respondent in unequivocable terms state that initially the
assignment land was made in favour of the 4th respondent vide
proceedings F.Dis No.18/1395 dated 02.07.1985 and there is no
contra material to disbelieve the same. Coming to the last
submission that the 2nd respondent could not have initiated
suomotu appeal in pursuance to the impugned order passed by
the 1st respondent and cancelled the pattadar passbook and title
25
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
deed, for which reliance was placed on Ratnamma case
(supra), there is no dispute on the said proposition, however the
present case does not strictly emanate from the proceedings
under ROR Act rather the orders cancelling the passbook and
title deed are in sequence to cancellation of assignment made in
favour of the petitioner, once the assignment is cancelled, the
natural cause of action would be to correct the revenue records
and restore entries ante. Therefore, the aforesaid consequential
action cannot be strictly seen to be independent proceeding
initiated under the provision of ROR Act and the same does not
call for any interference. Lastly, these writ petitions were opposed
by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on the ground that
the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy by filing appeal
before Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) under
BSO 15 (18) (2), rather than approaching this court and therefore
the writ petitions should not be entertained. As these matters are
of the year 2007 which got admitted long back, though there is
alternative remedy against the impugned order, this Court instead
of relegating the petitioner to avail such remedy at this length of
time, decided the matter on merits.
26
CGR, J
W.P. Nos.6937 & 10282 of 2007
22. In view of the above, there is no merit in these writ petitions.
Accordingly the same are dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
_______________________
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J
30.01.2025
SS/RSD