B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE proceedings of the Joint Collector, khammam dated 18th December, 2000 cancelling the assignment of the land made in favour of the petitioners is challenged in this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE order is attacked mainly on the ground of being violative of principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the joint Collector has passed the order misinterpreting the facts. ( 3 ) THE facts are telltale and deeply disturbing. The strategy and devise evolved by the petitioners to appropriate and grab the valuable Government land is glaring. The whole episode would suggest collusion of authorities at various stages. It is a clear case of manipulation. The land, which is meant for the distribution amongst the deprived sections and underdogs, has been knocked away by the vested interest. ( 4 ) THE facts as revealed by the records may have to be noticed. ( 5 ) THE third petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. Second petitioner is the son of petitioners 1 and 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that petitioners 2 and 3 are the true and absolute owners of dry land admeasuring ac. 10-00 each, total Ac. 20-00, in Survey no. 1228 situated at Aswaraopeta village, khammam District. Petitioners 2 and 3 have purchased the said lands under registered sale deeds dated 24-6-1996 and 28-11-1996 for a valuable consideration from one chirra Venkaiah and Chaldi Veeraswamy. The first petitioner is in possession of an extent of Ac. 5-00 of land in the same survey number. He claims the land to have been assigned in the year 1982. The lands are developed and brought under cultivation by spending huge amount of money. The petitioners raised coconut garden and guava garden. Necessary entries are made in the record of rights and pattadar passbooks also have been issued to them under the provisions of the A. P. Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the joint Collector, Khammam with a view to assign the lands to some other persons of his choice threatened the petitioners to forcibly evict them from the lands. Petitioners 2 and 3 filed W. P. No. 21525 of 2000 contending that they cannot be evicted from the lands in question. Petitioners 2 and 3 filed W. P. No. 21525 of 2000 contending that they cannot be evicted from the lands in question. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the Joint collector not to dispossess the petitioners from their lands without following the due process of law . ( 7 ) THE first petitioner filed W. P. No. 20450 of 2000 seeking directions not to dispossess him from the land except in accordance with law. The same is pending in this Court and the same is also taken up for disposal along with this writ petition. ( 8 ) THE Joint Collector by notice dated 17th October, 2000 set the law in motion against the petitioners in purported exercise of the power under Section 166-B of the andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land revenue Act, 1317 Fasli requiring the petitioners to submit their explanation as to why the assignment of the land earlier granted by the then Tahsildar should not be cancelled. It is clear that even by the time the petitioners filed those writ petitions, a show-cause notice was directed to be issued. The first petitioner even submitted his explanation to the said show-cause notice dated 27th October, 2000 itself. Yet, the petitioners have chosen to file the said writ petitions in this Court as if the Joint collector took steps for eviction of the petitioners from the lands in question without following any procedure. This conduct of the petitioners is only a tip on the iceberg in the whole scheme so meticulously prepared and executed by the petitioners. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the first respondent set the law in motion against them under the said provisions of law and surprisingly passed orders cancelling the assignment of land made in favour of chirra Venkaiah and Chaldi Veeraswamy earlier granted on 30-4-1988 and 31-7-1994 respectively. The Joint Collector further directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds and also to cancel the registered sale deeds executed by the said two individuals in favour of petitioners 2 and 3. This action, according to the petitioners, is a surprising one. No other details are mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The order is attacked on various grounds and the same shall be dealt with appropriately. This action, according to the petitioners, is a surprising one. No other details are mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The order is attacked on various grounds and the same shall be dealt with appropriately. ( 10 ) THE Joint Collector filed a very detailed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. Each and every allegation made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is controverted. ( 11 ) THE record would reveal that the land in Survey No. 1228 of Aswaraopeta village, Khammam District is admittedly a government land. The first petitioner is a native of West Godavari District and came to Aswaraopeta village in the year 1979-80 and settled down there. He is stated to be a politically influenced person and by using his political clout managed to get the assignment of Ac. 5-00 of land each in survey No. 1228 of Aswaraopeta village in the name of the following persons: (1) Gadiraju Narayana Raju (2) Datla Ravi Kumar Varma (3) Penmathsa Balaram Raju (4) Gadiraju Ramachandra Raju ( 12 ) ONE Kalidindi Anjaneyulu, resident of Aswaraopeta village filed a petition on 29-9-2000 before the District Collector, khammam alleging that the first petitioner herein who hails from West Godavari district has managed to get the assignment of the Government land during the year 1983 in Aswaraopeta village in his favour and in favour of his close kith and kin. It is alleged that none of them belong to the weaker sections of the society. They are not entitled for any assignment of the government land. They are not landless poor persons. The District Collector directed an enquiry into the matter. The mandal Revenue Officer accordingly made local inspection and enquiries and submitted detailed and comprehensive reports. The record would reveal that the first petitioner got the lands assigned in favour of his own kith and kin whose details are referred to hereinabove. ( 13 ) DATLA Ravi Kumar Varma, one of the assignees is none other than the nephew of the first petitioner. His father is a leading medical practitioner at- Eluru. He is a resident of Veturipudi village, bheemavaram Mandal, West Godavari district. He is stated to be working as pharmacy Assistant at Alluri Sitarama Raju medical College, Eluru and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1,200. 00. His father is a leading medical practitioner at- Eluru. He is a resident of Veturipudi village, bheemavaram Mandal, West Godavari district. He is stated to be working as pharmacy Assistant at Alluri Sitarama Raju medical College, Eluru and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1,200. 00. ( 14 ) SO far as the assignee Penumathsa balarama Raju is concerned, he is working as Security Guard in Bharat Heavy Plates and Vessels, Visakhapatnam. He hails from kankur village, Bheemavaram Mandal, west Godavari District. He is an ex- serviceman. He continues to be in service of bharat Heavy Plates and Vessels for the last 16 years. The assignment was granted in his favour under the quota of ex-servicemen. ( 15 ) GADIRAJU Venkata Ramachandra Raju is also a non-resident of Aswaraopeta village. He is from Relangi village, bheemavaram Mandal, West Godavari district. He is working as Welder in workshop of NSTL at Visakhapatnam since last 20 years. ( 16 ) THE record would further reveal that the lands assigned to the above said three individuals were never in their possession. The first petitioner continues to be in possession of the lands ever since the assignment. He is stated to have raised mango and cashew plantation. He continued to be in possession of the lands until taken over by the respondents pursuant to the impugned order. The record reveals another startling fact that the first petitioner, apart from getting the said lands assigned in favour of his kith and kin, occupied an extent of Ac. 5-00 of land abutting the said land, which was assigned to the landless poor persons by threatening the assignees. The first petitioner is stated to be an arrack contractor who acquired considerable wealth and property at aswaraopeta. ( 17 ) THE record would further reveal that the lands assigned in favour of Penumathsa balarama Raju and Gadiraju Ramachandra raju were re-assigned in favour of one chaldi Veeraswamy, resident of Bonakal mandal in the category of freedom fighter. The said Veera Swamy in turn disposed of the said lands in favour of the third petitioner who is the wife of the first petitioner under a registered document no. 1609 of 1996. The lands assigned in favour of the first petitioner and Datla ravikumar Varma were also re-assigned to another freedom fighter - Chirra Venkaiah, resident of Chirunomula village of Bonakal mandal. 1609 of 1996. The lands assigned in favour of the first petitioner and Datla ravikumar Varma were also re-assigned to another freedom fighter - Chirra Venkaiah, resident of Chirunomula village of Bonakal mandal. He in turn sold the land in favour of the second petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 24-6-1996. Thus the total extent of Ac. 20-00 of land continued to be in possession of the first petitioner at all points of time. ( 18 ) IT is interesting to notice that the reassignment in favour of the so called freedom fighters was without any cancellation of the earlier assignment granted in favour of the first petitioner and others whose details have already been noticed. It looks as though the first petitioner got whatever he wanted from the local administration. It is a case of no holds bar favouritism extended by the local officials to the first petitioner. The scheme evolved and executed with finesse would reveal that the first petitioner got the lands assigned, each admeasuring Ac. 5-00, in his favour and in favour of his kith and kin. All of them are non-locals. They are not landless poor persons and do not belong to the weaker sections of the. society. The very lands got once again reassigned in favour of some individuals, who are stated to be the freedom fighters. Assignment of the same lands twice in favour of different individuals. The said lands are ultimately purchased by the first petitioner in the names of his son and wife, who are petitioners 2 and 3 respectively. The land which is meant either to be utilised by the government for its purposes or to be distributed to the needy belonging to the local weaker sections of the society went into the hands of a well-to-do person hailing from a neighbouring District. The facts disclose the continuous exploitation of the weaker sections of the society by the resourceful individuals in collusion with some officials of the local administration. But for the interest evinced by the District collector, the matter perhaps would not have received the requisite attention. ( 19 ) THE record also would reveal that necessary notices were issued to the so- called freedom fighters - Chaldi veeraswamy and Chirra Venkaiah of bonakal Mandal. But for the interest evinced by the District collector, the matter perhaps would not have received the requisite attention. ( 19 ) THE record also would reveal that necessary notices were issued to the so- called freedom fighters - Chaldi veeraswamy and Chirra Venkaiah of bonakal Mandal. The said notice was served on Chaldi Veeraswamy and the notice sent to Chirra Venkaiah could not be served as he is reported to have died. Chaldi Veeraswamy attended the enquiry before the Joint Collector on 8-12-2000 and deposed that he applied for assignment of government land in Aswaraopeta village through one Raghupathi, Patwari of chintagurthi village and he did not know whether any assignment of land at all was granted in his favour. He is not aware of grant of assignment of Ac. 10-00 of land in survey No. 1228 of Aswaraopeta village. In his statement, he categorically stated that he never cultivated the land. He was taken to the Sub-Registrar, Sathupalli and made to subscribe his signature on the document. He did not know as to who is Smt. Gadiraju rama Sita. He had clearly stated that he did not receive any sale consideration as mentioned in the registered document. Stranger than fiction! ( 20 ) THE record also would disclose that at no point of time, the so-called freedom fighters were in possession of the land. The entries made in the revenue records do not confirm the possession and enjoyment of the land at any point of time by the so- called freedom fighters. The Joint Collector found that the entire transaction of assignment in favour of the individuals who are none other than the kith and kin of the first petitioner initially and the subsequent re-assignment of the very same land in favour of the so-called freedom fighters and sale in favour of petitioners 2 and 3 by the said two freedom fighters is the result of fraud perpetuated by the first petitioner in collusion with the officials of local administration. The findings do not suffer from any legal infirmity. As rightly observed by the Joint Collector, the entire transaction is confined to paper which is nothing but a sham and nominal one. The first petitioner continued and enjoyed the lands in question at all points of time until the same was taken into possession by the respondents pursuant to the impugned order. As rightly observed by the Joint Collector, the entire transaction is confined to paper which is nothing but a sham and nominal one. The first petitioner continued and enjoyed the lands in question at all points of time until the same was taken into possession by the respondents pursuant to the impugned order. ( 21 ) IN the circumstances, the Joint collector rightly cancelled the assignment earlier granted in favour of the kith and kin of the petitioners and also cancelled the reassignment granted on paper in favour of the so-called freedom fighters. The sale deeds executed by the said freedom fighters would in no manner affect the right, title and interest of the Government in the land in question. The transaction of sale would fall to the ground when once the assignment granted in favour of the petitioners vendors is cancelled. ( 22 ) IT is interesting to notice that except the first petitioner, the other assignees, viz. , datla Ravi Kumar Varma, Penmathsa balaram Raju and Gadiraju Ramachandra raju failed to submit any explanation to the show-cause notice issued by the Joint collector requiring their explanation in the matter as to why their assignment should not be cancelled. The first petitioner alone submitted his explanation. Petitioners 2 and 3 merely claimed before the Joint Collector that they have purchased the lands in question under registered sale deeds. One of the freedom fighters expressed his ignorance in the matter about any assignment in his favour. He is not even aware that a sale deed has been obtained from him in respect of the very land in question by the first petitioner in favour of petitioners 2 and 3. The wife of another freedom fighter - Chirra Venkaiah was served. She never appeared in the matter and submitted any explanation. The Joint collector after careful analysis of all the facts and upon perusal of the complete record and material available on record came to the conclusion that the first petitioner managed to get the assignment pattas in favour of himself, Datla Ravi kumar Varma, Penmathsa Balaram Raju and Gadiraju Ramachandra Raju at the rate of Ac. 5-00 each "who are non-residents and kith and kin of Gadiraju Narayana Raju (first petitioner) and not below the poverty line". 5-00 each "who are non-residents and kith and kin of Gadiraju Narayana Raju (first petitioner) and not below the poverty line". The Joint Collector further observed that having realised that there may be some kind of problem relating to the occupation of the land, the first petitioner managed to get the land re-assigned in favour of two freedom fighters at the rate of Ac. 10-00 each without any cancellation of the earlier assignment made to himself and three others and subsequently obtained the sale deeds from the said freedom fighters in favour of his son and wife. The first petitioner accordingly managed to extend his grip over an extent of Ac. 20-00 of land belonging to the Government without any justification whatsoever. It is under those circumstances, the Joint Collector passed orders cancelling the irregular assignment made in favour of the first petitioner and three others, viz. , Datla Ravi Kumar Varma, penmathsa Balarama Raju and Gadiraju ramachandra Raju and also passed orders cancelling the re-assignment of the very land in favour of the alleged two freedom fighters, viz. , Chaldi Veeraswamy and chirra Venkaiah. That would automatically render the registered sale deeds executed in favour of petitioners 2 and 3 void and inoperative. ( 23 ) SOMETIMES even a spider gets caught in its own web. This is the one such case. Petitioners have sown the wind and they have to reap the whirlwind. ( 24 ) THE laudable object of making the government lands available to the weaker sections of the society and landless poor persons from the local area and to freedom fighters and ex-servicemen got frustrated, the noble policy had become an instrument of appropriation of communities resources for the benefit of already rich. The nexus between the rich contractors with political clout and the bureaucracy distorts pro-poor and pro-local development measures and reduces them to a farce. The State sponsored egalitarian measures for the betterment of local landless poor are hijacked by the crafty and resourceful individuals. This is not a dramatic new development; it has happened at some level through history. Such machinations push the bulk of people to the brink of disaster. This pernicious tendency of appropriation of resources works itself out by pushing vast masses of local people into accentuated poverty and underdevelopment, into subservience resulting in chaos marked by strife. This is not a dramatic new development; it has happened at some level through history. Such machinations push the bulk of people to the brink of disaster. This pernicious tendency of appropriation of resources works itself out by pushing vast masses of local people into accentuated poverty and underdevelopment, into subservience resulting in chaos marked by strife. The effort on the part of the district administration to regain the control of the land serves public interest. The administration to that extent deserves appreciation, ( 25 ) THERE is absolutely no merit whatsoever in the contention that the first petitioner was a landless poor at the time of original assignment in the year 1982. The scheme evolved by the first petitioner is so glaring even to a naked eye. It is well settled that this Court does not exercise any appellate jurisdiction over the orders passed by the statutory authorities. Suffice it to hold that the decision making process by the Joint Collector is not vitiated for any reason whatsoever. The findings do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. Any interference by this Court may amount to perpetuating the fraud played by the petitioners. ( 26 ) IN the Memorandum of Grounds in the writ petition, it is, however, stated that the Joint Collector did not make available a copy of the report submitted by the Mandal revenue Officer. The petitioners, in law, are not entitled for any such preliminary report preceding the show-cause notice. The collector appears to have directed the mandal Revenue Officer to verify the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners herein in the petition filed by one Kalidindi Anjaneyulu. In the show-cause notice all the relevant facts are revealed, to which petitioners have submitted their explanation. The first petitioner s explanation is totally vague and couched in indefinite terms. The first petitioner merely stated that he was a, landless poor person at the time when the land was assigned. At any rate, the petitioners herein never demanded for a copy of the report as such from the Joint collector. An elaborate enquiry has been held by the Joint Collector in which the petitioners have participated. Non- furnishing of the report has not caused and resulted in any prejudice whatsoever to the case of the petitioners. At any rate, the petitioners herein never demanded for a copy of the report as such from the Joint collector. An elaborate enquiry has been held by the Joint Collector in which the petitioners have participated. Non- furnishing of the report has not caused and resulted in any prejudice whatsoever to the case of the petitioners. The Joint Collector rightly reached the conclusions in the matter. The facts on hand lead to only one and irresistible conclusion revealing the fraud perpetuated by the first petitioner to appropriate the valuable Government lands admeasuring Ac. 20-00 situated in aswaraopeta village of Khammam District. ( 27 ) THE record reveals collusion of some officers with the petitioners facilitating the appropriation of Government land by the petitioners. It is not clear from the record as to whether any action has been initiated against those officers. In the circumstances, the District Collector is directed to make appropriate enquiry for initiating action against the erring officers. 28. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed with costs, quantified at rs. 5,000/ -.