S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) WHETHER the land classified as a "kunta Poramboke" can be subject matter of assignment by way of patta is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of an order dated 29-9-2000 passed by a learned single Judge of the:. Court in Writ Petition No. 2063 of 1999. Facts: ( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner s (appellant herein) husband late Basavarah was said to be in occupation ot the land in Sy No 216/1 of ankireddypalem village The nature of the said land being kunta poramboke is not in dispute. The said assignment was admittedly made by the Tahsildar on 21-10-1981. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 1985. ( 3 ) THE District Collector, however, issued a show-cause notice in Rc. No. 972/ 97/b3, dated 26-5-1997 upon the appellant herein as to why the said assignment shall not be cancelled stating:"rc. 972/97/b3, dated 26-5-1997 collector s OFFICL, GUNTUR SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE sub -Assignment-Land- Guntur Mandal- lalpuram, H/o. Anki-Reddypalem village - s. No. 216 - Kunta poramboke - Assigned an extent Ac 3 52 cents to Sri Kuttun basavarah in D K No 309/91- Assigned irregularly- Show-cause Notice issued - explanation - called for- Reg ref -1 M R. O , Guntur Re. 2340/96-F , dated 16-12-1996. 2. Commissioner, Guntur Municipal corporation, Guntur, Letter Re 1149/96-G1, dated 24-4-1997 survey Number 216 of Ankireddypalcm village of Guntur Mandal measuring Ac. 5 03 cents is classified as kunta poramboke There is a drinking water tank in the part of the said land and the water is being used by the nearby colony people but, the then Tahsildar, Guntui during 1981 has assigned an extent ot Ac. 3 52 cents in survey Number 216 in favoui ot Sri Kattun basavaiah of I alpuram villagc in d K No 309/91 showing the sub-division on 216/1. But, actually the land neither was converted from kunta poramboke to assessed waste dry nor sub-divided Also there is no consent from neither the Guntur Municipality if it is included in Municipality nor from the concerned Gram Panchayat in favour of the assignment Any land before the assignment has to be converted into Ayan after publishing the A1 notice in the concerned Gram panchayat/municipality. But the then tashildar, Guntur without getting the land converted into Ayan has granted patta which is highly objectionable and also exceeded his limits in granting pattas. As such, no patta can be granted exceeding the powers of the Tashildar and if at all he granted patta without following the procedure and without conversion of the land, it is liable to be cancelled as per para 18 of B. S. O. 15 read with amendment made in G. O. Ms. No 912, revenue (B) Department, dated 2-8-1985. Now, the said land is required for a public purpose for maintaining a fresh water tank for the use of the surrounding colony people. In the above circumstances, Smt. Katturi mahalaxmamma, W/o. late Basavarah is hereby directed to show-cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of this show-cause notice as to why patta granted to her husband in D. K. No. 309/91 should not be cancelled. Her explanation should reach this office within the stipulated time failing which the matter will be decided on the strength of the material available on record. Sd/- v. N. VISHNU, JOINT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR. " ( 4 ) THE appellant filed an explanation admitting that the nature of the land in question is kunta poramboke, but she alleged that her husband had levelled the said land by incurring expenditure and converted the same to cultivable land. It was stated that neither any fraud or misrepresentation has been committed nor the same has been issued by way of a mistake of fact. The main thrust of the said explanation was that having regard to the fact that more than 15 years had lapsed from the date of grant of patta, the same should not be cancelled. The Joint collector by an order dated 15-10-1997 considered the contentions raised before him and directed cancellation of the assignment in relation to Ac. 3. 52 cents of land in sy. No. 216/1. ( 5 ) AN appeal thereagainst was preferred by the appellant herein before the special Commissioner, Hyderabad marked as Spl. CLR s Progs No. BCW5/1261/97, dated 4-9-1998. Having regard to a greater public interest and keeping in view the submissions raised before the said authority, the learned Commissioner dismissed the said appeal upholding the order passed by the joint Collector. The writ petition was filed questioning the aforementioned order. CLR s Progs No. BCW5/1261/97, dated 4-9-1998. Having regard to a greater public interest and keeping in view the submissions raised before the said authority, the learned Commissioner dismissed the said appeal upholding the order passed by the joint Collector. The writ petition was filed questioning the aforementioned order. ( 6 ) THE learned single Judge having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter and keeping in view the fact that the land in question is required for public purpose for maintaining fresh water tank held. "in the show-cause notice, it is clearly indicated that the remaining land in possession of the petitioner is also required for public purpose for maintaining fresh water tank for the use of surrounding colony people. It is thus clear that the land in question is required for public purpose. It is rather difficult to discern as to how a portion of the land, which is admittedly a tank bed land could have been assigned by the Tashildar to the petitioner s husband. It is admitted by the petitioner in her reply to the show-cause notice that in an extent of Ac. 1. 50 cents water is being stored to cater the needs of the people of the locality. The authority assigned the land, which is otherwise reserved for public purpose. It is an admitted fact that there is a complete ban and prohibition of assignment of tank bed lands. The finding by both the authorities that the land is required for public purpose does not suffer from any legal infirmity requiring any interference by this Court. "contentions : ( 7 ) MR. N. Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised several contentions in support of this appeal The learned Counsel would contend that although no period of limitation is prescribed for cancellation of the said patta, such a procedure cannot be taken recourse to after a long lapse of time. In support of the said contention, strong reliance has been placed on Kodanda Rao v Govt of a P, 1981 (2) ALT 280 (DB), IT Vyavasaya coolie Sangam v KS Reddy, 1996 (2) ald 945 (DB), P Mangamma v Worktnen s co-op Housing Society Ltd. , 1995 (3) ALT 330 (DB ). In support of the said contention, strong reliance has been placed on Kodanda Rao v Govt of a P, 1981 (2) ALT 280 (DB), IT Vyavasaya coolie Sangam v KS Reddy, 1996 (2) ald 945 (DB), P Mangamma v Worktnen s co-op Housing Society Ltd. , 1995 (3) ALT 330 (DB ). It was next contended that having regard to the fact that the Joint collector as also the Commissioner travelled beyond the show-cause notice, the impugned order must be held to be vitiated in law inasmuch as in relation to the matter wherefor no opportunity had been granted to the appellant, the impugned order must be held to be non-est in the eye of law. Strong reliance m this connection has been placed on Smt M Navaneetha v Mandal revenue Officer, Kodangal, 1996 (1) ALT 653 In any event, the learned Counsel contends that as the assignment is sought to be cancelled, the appellant is entitled to the compensation therefor. Reliance in this connection has been placed on State of A P. v P Peda Chmnayya, 1996 (2) ALD 1215 = 1997 (1) ALT 498 (FB) and Gotta Pochaiah alias Jangaiah v State ofandhra Pradesh, 1999 (6) ALD 322 . ( 8 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand would submits that a Tashildar had no jurisdiction to assign the land in favour of the appellant s husband which was kunta poramboke m nature and that before such assignment no conversion as is required in terms of board Standing Order 15 (4) has been taken recourse 10, the entire proceedings must be held to be a nullity. Findings ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that the matter relating to assignment of land is provided for under the Andhra Pradesh Board standings Orders. Part II of the Standing orders deals with disposal of lands Section it thereof provides for the rules, which apply to the disposal of assessed lands not being reserved Both Standing Order No 15 (3) empowers a Tahsildar, as defined in sub- paragraph (2) of paragraph 3, to assign dry land and wet land and Note 2 appended thereto is m the following terms. "note 2 -The share of each member of a joint family as also the enjoyment of the income of the joint family by an applicant will be taken into consideration for deciding whether or not he is landless poor person minor sons would not however, be eligible for the grant of lands as they cannot be expected to engage themselves m direct cultivation"wet land has been defined in sub-clause (v1) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of board Standing Order No. 15, which includes imgable dry lands but not garden lands. Assigning authority has been defined in clause (xi) to mean "aligning Authority" - The Tahsildars and deputy Tahsildars in independent charge are the authonties competent to assign wet lands as well as dry lands The lahsildars and deputy Tahsildars employed specially for assignment work shall also exercise these powers" ( 10 ) IT is not in dispute that persons who are eligible for assignment are only the persons who are landless and poor persons who directly engage themselves in cultivation including Hanjans, Ex-Toddy tappers, backward communities, weavers, ex-servicemen, serving soldiers (jawans), political sufferers and co-operative societies consisting of entirely landless poor persons. ( 11 ) CLAUSE (ii) of paragraph 4 of Board standing Order No 15 inter alia prohibits assignment of poramboke in the following terms:" (A) Poramboke (tank-beds, fore-shore of tank-beds, cattle stands, grazing lands and reserved lands (reserved for depressed class members or for any public purpose, such as schools, play grounds, hospitals, maternity centres, reading rooms, extension of house- sites, panchayat purposes town sites and lands in the proximity thereof. " ( 12 ) NOTE I appended to the said provision states that whenever applications for assignment of lands classified as porambokes are received, the same should be examined as to whether the lands are really required for the purpose for which they had been originally set apart or for any other purpose and if they are not so required, steps should be taken to ayan and assign them. The relevant portion of Board standing Order No. 15 reads thus:" (35) Grant of poramboke and reserved land (1) (i) General:-The grant of any land registered as poramboke or entered in the accounts as "reserved" or of any land falling under the heads enumerated in the following sub-paragraph is prima facie objectionable. The relevant portion of Board standing Order No. 15 reads thus:" (35) Grant of poramboke and reserved land (1) (i) General:-The grant of any land registered as poramboke or entered in the accounts as "reserved" or of any land falling under the heads enumerated in the following sub-paragraph is prima facie objectionable. Applications for such land shall not be entertained by Village Officers or Revenue Inspectors but may be received by Tahsildars. They must be in writing and need not be stamped. If the assignment of the land is forbidden under the ensuing rules or is contrary to the provisions of the rules in Section II or is in his opinion undesirable, the Tahsildar should reject the application; if he thinks that the land may be granted, he should publish the proposal to assign it for occupation in the village in the manner prescribed, and when a Panchayat has been established for the village under the andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (Act 2 of 1964), he should also give intimation of the proposal to such Panchayat board and should then obtain the orders of the Collector to transfer it to the head of "assessed" land. If the Collector refuses to sanction the transfer, the Tahsildar should reject the application and inform the applicant accordingly. The Collector, if he sanctions the transfer, should fix the assessment to be charged, which will ordinarily be the assessment on similar land in the neighbourhood, but he can exercise his direction in the matter. The Tahsildar should then deal with the application in the manner prescribed for "assessed" land. (ii) Water-course porambokes:- Great care should be taken to preserve the margins of canals and streams. The transfer and assignment of such porambokes should be restricted to lands lying outside the limits prescribed in paragraph 2 of B. S. O. No. 15. " ( 13 ) THE Joint Collector in his notice dated 26-5-1997 categorically stated that the lands in question which were poramboke in nature had not been converted. In her explanation submitted by the appellant herein, the said fact had not been denied or disputed. ( 14 ) IT is not in dispute that the procedure laid down in the aforementioned provisions had not been complied with. In her explanation submitted by the appellant herein, the said fact had not been denied or disputed. ( 14 ) IT is not in dispute that the procedure laid down in the aforementioned provisions had not been complied with. ( 15 ) IT is not difficult to comprehend as to why poramboke lands had been reserved and were brought within the prohibited category so that the same may not be assigned. The only exception as may be noticed from Note 1 appended to Board standing Order No. 15 (4) was, when the lands are really not required for the purpose for which they were originally set apart and only upon arriving at a satisfaction that they are not so required, steps should be taken to convert them to ayan and assign them. As noticed hereinabove, the Tahsildar as the assigning authority is competent to assign only wet land and dry land of an extent of only two and a half acre and thus he had absolutely no jurisdiction to assign poramboke land far less kunta poramboke before the same is converted. Poramboke and kunta poramboke even upon conversion could be subject-matter of assignment only at the instance of the collector and not anybody else. The area of land is also more than two and a half acre. ( 16 ) THE purported settlement of the land by the Tahsildar in favour of the husband of the writ petitioner was, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction and a nullity. The mandatory requirement of law having not been followed, we are of the opinion, the entire transaction suffers from malice in law as the same had been entered into by the Tahsildar and the husband of the appellant for unauthorised consideration. In any event, the said assignment having been made without following the procedure laid down therefor and without any authority and jurisdiction by the Tahsildar, the same must be held to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and thus non-est in the eye of law. ( 17 ) IT may be true that an assignment of land should not be cancelled after a long time, but in the instant case, a misrepresentation and/or fraud was detected much latter. Furthermore, the impugned orders have been passed on admitted facts. ( 17 ) IT may be true that an assignment of land should not be cancelled after a long time, but in the instant case, a misrepresentation and/or fraud was detected much latter. Furthermore, the impugned orders have been passed on admitted facts. ( 18 ) IN Kodanda Rao (supra), this Court differed with the observations made by an earlier Bench of this Court in K. Venkata reddy and others v. the Director of settlements, Survey and Land Records: hyderabad and others, 1975 (I) APLJ 111 (DB), relying or on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in State of gujarat v. P. Raghav, AIR 1969 SC 1297 . The question as to whether, even in the absence of a statute, the power could be exercised within a reasonable time depends on facts of each case. No law in absolute terms can be laid down therefor nor, in our opinion, has been so laid down by the apex Court in P. Raghav (supra ). ( 19 ) PORAMBOKES are primarily tank beds. Such tank beds are required to be maintained in villages for various purposes including for maintenance of a clean environment. Kunta poramboke is a water tank. Such water bodies are required to be maintained having regard to the doctrine of public trust which envisages that the lands and water bodies which vest in the sovereign State should be preserved and utilised for the utmost benefit of public at large. All such water bodies vest in public authority. In the show-cause notice it has been clearly stated that the lands in question were used as a fresh water tank for the use of surrounding colony people. We. therefore, are of the opinion that although, ordinarily, proceedings for cancellation of assignment should be initiated within a reasonable time, in case of this nature where article 21 of the Constitution of India would have a role to play, the writ Court in large public interest should not interfere in the matter. ( 20 ) HOWEVER, we may notice that in k. Naravanaswami Naidu v. State of a. P. , 1997 (5) ALT 276 (DB), it has categorically been held that assignee had no vested right. ( 20 ) HOWEVER, we may notice that in k. Naravanaswami Naidu v. State of a. P. , 1997 (5) ALT 276 (DB), it has categorically been held that assignee had no vested right. The Division Bench clearly held that an error committed in the assignment of land before amendment can be rectified at any time in revision after amendment without bar of limitation if such cancellation is on the ground that it violates fie provisions of Board Standing Orders. It was held. "it is contended that in the case of the appellants herein, the amended provision could not be applied and by this method the vested right could not have been destroyed. We are, however, not impressed by this contention at all. What was sought to be claimed under a provision in the Board standing Orders is no more available because the very Standing Order had become non-existent and under the new Standing order, there is no reason to think that something done under the repealed order will just remain untouched. In any case, the concept of vested right in respect of assignment of land cannot be acknowledged. Assignee at the best has the possessory right which is good against the whole world but not against the real owner. In any case, the concept of vested right in respect of assignment of land cannot be acknowledged. Assignee at the best has the possessory right which is good against the whole world but not against the real owner. " ( 21 ) WE are in respectful agreement with the observations made by the Division bench ( 22 ) IN Suit M Navaneetha (supia), a learned single Judge of this Court was considenng cancellation of authorisation of a fall price shop, which evidently was affecting a fundamental right of a dealer to can y on business as envisaged under article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India it was held"i see considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner In his ordet dated 25-10-1995, the Joint collector concedes that new ground were mentioned in the order of the Revenue divisional Officer which do not form part of the show-cause notice Bui he chaiactensed it only as a technical violation he confirmed the older by observing that the lecotd of enquiry by the Deputy Tashildar clearly shows that the dealer s husband was vety much present during the cnquny and that the allegation relating to the non- distnbulion to Bhimli Thanda people was one ot the charges into which the enquiry was conducted I am of the view that the learned Joint Collectoi has misdirected himself in thinking that it is only a technical violation inasmuch as the order of cancellation is based on three new ground which aie not at all mentioned in the show cause notice 1 am satisfied that the same cannol be sustained" ( 23 ) HOWEVER, m the instant case, the decision at rived at by the Joint Collector as also the Commissioner can be sustained only on admitted facts inasmuch as from such admitted facts alone it could be said that the purported assignment had been in gross violation of the Board Standing orders and that such assignment has been made by a person who had no authority or jurisdiction therefor We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order is unassailable Furthermore, so far as the question of grant of compensation is concerned, we are of the opinion that the said rule is applied in a case where the assignment has been made of a land capable of assignment and the persons were eligible therefor In the instant case, as alleged fraud has been committed, the said principle of grant of compensation shall have also no application ( 24 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed No order as to costs.