O R A L O R D E R (per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.R. Nayak) The writ petitioners who are the appellants herein are the legal heirs of one Panguru Chenga Reddy, the assignee of the subject land. They have filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 11.3.1997 in W.P. No. 4003 of 1997. In the writ petition, the appellants-writ petitioners assailed the validity of the order dated 9.7.1992 passed by the District Collector, Nellore, as confirmed by the Special Commissioner of Land Revenue by his order dated 20.11.1996. The learned single judge by his order dated 11.3.1997 dismissed the writ petition at the stage of admission. Hence this writ appeal, The factual background leading to the filing of the writ petition is as follows: Late Panguru Chenga reddy claiming to be a native of Kotapolur village applied for assignment of government land. On consideration of his application, Ac. 2.25 cents of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 139/9, 467/5 and 468/2 of Kotapolur village was assigned to him by the then Tahsildar, Sullurpet by proceedings in F.Dis. No. 408/82 dated 14.5.1973. The assignee died on 15.1.1989. When the matter stood thus, the District Collector, Nellore District, the 2nd respondent herein, issued show cause notice dated 5.8.1989 to the deceased assignee, Chenga Reddy, proposing to cancel the assignment made in his favour in the year 1973 on two grounds, viz., (i) that the assignee was not the resident of Kotapolur village at the time when the land was assigned to him; and (ii) that the assignee was not a landless poor person at the time of assignment. When the appellants came to know about the notice to the deceased assignee, they filed their objections. On consideration of the objections filed by the appellants, the District Collector passed an order on 29.9.1989 cancelling the assignment. The appellants being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein. On consideration of the objections filed by the appellants, the District Collector passed an order on 29.9.1989 cancelling the assignment. The appellants being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein. The Commissioner by his order dated 18.2.1991 disposed of the appeal and remanded the proceedings to the District Collector for fresh disposal, the operative portion of which reads thus— “There is no reference to any specific landed property standing in the name of the assignee at the time of assignment except for the simple statement that he is not a landless poor person in the impugned order. Under the circumstances the case is remanded to the District Collector, who is directed to dispose of the case afresh on merits after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to establish that the original assignee (father of the petitioners was a landless poor person at the time of assignment. Pending disposal of the case by the Collector, the stay granted by the Commissioner of Land Revenue vide Ref. No Spl. B.l/3808/89 dated 12.10.1989 will continue”. On remand of the proceedings, the District Collector by his order dated9.7.1991 again cancelled the assignment made in favour of Panguru Chenga Reddy over an extent of Ac. 2.25 cents in Sy. Nos. 139/9, 467/5 and 468/2 of Kotapolur village in the year 1973 and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sullurpet, the 3rd respondent herein, to take possession of the land immediately and to assign the same to the local eligible Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe families. The appellants being aggrieved by the said order, again preferred an appeal to the Special Commissioner of Land Revenue, which was dismissed by his order 20.11.1996. That led the appellants to file W.P. No. 4003 of 1997. Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would assail the validity of the order made by the District Collector contending that in the first place there was absolutely no justification for the District Collector to exercise the revisional power under BSO-15 (18) of the Andhra Pradesh Board Standing Orders after a lapse of 16 year, that too, at the behest of a stranger. Secondly, the learned counsel would contend that the District Collector instead of deciding the question whether Chenga Reddy had owned any land at the time of assignment or not as directed by the Commissioner, chose to cancel the assignment on a different ground that he was not a resident of Kotapolur village at the time of assignment. The counsel would maintain that the assignee, at the relevant point of time, was a native of Kotapolur village and not Uggumudi village. The learned counsel would also contend that though the District Collector at the relevant point of time had the power and authority of the Commissioner, necessary conditions precedent to exercise the power of revision under BSO -15 (18) did not exist, and, therefore, the initiation of the revision proceedings itself should be held to be one without authority of law. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue would support the impugned order passed by the District Collector and the subsequent orders made by the Commissioner and the learned single Judge. The learned Government Pleader would maintain that the material placed before the District Collector would go to show that the assignee was not a landless poor person in the year 1973 when he sought assignment of the subject land. In the first place, it needs to be emphasized that the revisional power vested in the Commissioner under BSO-15 (18) is circumscribed by two conditions viz., (i) where the donee of the power finds that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure; and (ii) where the decision made by the original authority exceeded the power vested in him or where it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation. In the premise of these conditions prescribed for invocation of the power under BSO-15 (18), it should be held that in the instant case, none of the above conditions existed when the District Collector issued the show cause notice on 5.8.1989. As pointed out supra, the District Collector, by issuing the show cause notice dated 5.8.1989, sought to cancel the assignment only on two grounds. As pointed out supra, the District Collector, by issuing the show cause notice dated 5.8.1989, sought to cancel the assignment only on two grounds. Although it was alleged in the show cause notice that the assignee was not a landless poor person and although the appellate authority in the first round of litigation directed the District Collector to find out the holding of the assignee at the relevant point of time, that is to say, when the land was assigned in the year 1973, the District Collector did not take any steps to find out the actual extent of land held by the assignee. In other words, there was nothing on the record of the District Collector to satisfy himself that the assignee was not a landless poor person when the assignment was made by the then Tahsildar in the year 1973. Therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings to cancel the assignment under BSO-15 (18), in our considered opinion, is unjustified and one without ‘authority of law. Secondly, the initiation of the proceedings in the year 1989 after a long lapse of 16 years, particularly at the behest of a stranger and “Of suo motu, is also totally unjustified and illegal in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF GUJARAT V. P.RAGHAV(1) and several other judgments to follow and the Judgment of this Court in P.MANGAMMA V. WOMEN’S CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED(2). Further, it is curious to note that the District Collector, despite the fact that the appellate authority directed him to decide the question whether the assignee was a landless poor person or not in the year 1973 when he sought assignment of the land and decide the question whether the assignment should be cancelled or not afresh, chose a different ground to cancel the assignment that the assignee was not a resident of Kotapolur village, but a resident of Uggumudi village. Even assuming that the assignee, in fact, was a resident of Uggumudi village as claimed by the District Collector, we are at a loss to understand how that circumstance itself could be a valid and substantive ground to cancel the assignment made in the year 1973 by proceedings initiated in the year 1989. There is no legal bar for a landless poor person residing in “A” village to seek assignment of Government land situate in “B” village under BSOs. There is no legal bar for a landless poor person residing in “A” village to seek assignment of Government land situate in “B” village under BSOs. Of course, the guidelines prescribe that if there are number of applicants for assignment of a land situate in “A” village, preference will be given to those landless poor persons who are residents of “A” village and not the applicants of other villages. From this provision, it cannot be said that under no circumstance, the land situate in “A” village could not be granted to a landless poor person who is a resident of another village. The whole perception of the District Collector in forming the opinion is illegal, erroneous and unjustified. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, otherwise, there will be failure of justice. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the District Collector dated 9-7-1992 and the subsequent order of the Special Commissioner of Land Revenue dated 20.11.1996 are quashed, with no order as to costs. --X—