Judgment This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 17.01.2001 of respondent No.1. At the outset, it needs to be noted that in the writ petition the year 2001 mentioned while referring to the order of respondent No.1 is an obvious mistake for the year 2000. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) and perused the record. The petitioner was granted an assignment of an extent of Ac.5.00 on 07.04.1977. On the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Aswaraopet, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 28.01.1994 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the said assignment shall not be cancelled, as she was getting income of more than Rs.500/- per month and having more than Ac.5.00 of land at the time of assignment. The petitioner submitted her explanation to the said show cause notice, wherein she stated that her late husband was having Ac.28.00 of land, that Ac.7.00 out of the said land was disposed of by him about 30 years back, that the remaining Ac.20.00 of land was partitioned among her three daughters and that as the said land was situated in an agency area, the same could not be transferred in the names of her daughters. The petitioner also enclosed a Photostat copy of partition agreement dated 05.03.1969. After considering the said explanation, respondent No.2 passed order dated 19.05.1995 resuming the land by cancelling the assignment in exercise of his powers under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1, which was dismissed by order dated 17.01.2000. A perusal of the affidavit shows that the main ground on which the order of respondent No.1 is questioned is that before passing the said order, no opportunity was given to the petitioner. With reference to this averment, I have examined Section 166-B of the 1317 Fasli Act. For proper understanding of this provision, the same is reproduced hereinbelow. A perusal of the affidavit shows that the main ground on which the order of respondent No.1 is questioned is that before passing the said order, no opportunity was given to the petitioner. With reference to this averment, I have examined Section 166-B of the 1317 Fasli Act. For proper understanding of this provision, the same is reproduced hereinbelow. “166-B Revision:- (1) Subject to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 F, the Government or any Revenue officer not lower in rank to a Collector the Settlement Commissioner of Land Records may call for the record of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and may make suitable order in that behalf. Provided that no order or decision affecting the rights of the ryot shall be modified or annulled unless the concerned parties are summoned and heard. (2) Every Revenue Officer lower in rank to a Collector or Settlement Commissioner may call for the records of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and if in his opinion, any order or decision or, proceedings should be modified or annulled, he shall put up the file of the case with his opinion to the Collector or Settlement Commissioner as the case may be. Thereupon, the Collector or Settlement Commissioner may pass suitable order under the provisions of sub-section (1). (3) The original order or decision or an authentic copy of the original order or decision sought to be revised shall be filed along with every application for revision.” From the above-reproduced Section, it is clear that the Government or any Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Collector or the Settlement Commissioner of Land Records are vested with the power to call for the record of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and pass suitable orders after examining the regularity, legality or propriety of such orders. Under the proviso, it is envisaged that such an order, which affects the rights of the parties, shall not be modified or annulled unless the concerned parties are summoned and heard. Under the proviso, it is envisaged that such an order, which affects the rights of the parties, shall not be modified or annulled unless the concerned parties are summoned and heard. In the instant case, respondent No.1 has not exercised its suo motu powers. The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 by the impugned order has merely confirmed the order of respondent No.2. The proviso to Section 166-B contemplates summoning of the parties and hearing them in cases where the revisional authority seeks to modify or annul the order or decision, if such modification or annulment affects the rights of the persons. In the instant case, no order passed in favour of the petitioner was modified or annulled. Respondent No.1 has merely confirmed the order of respondent No.2, cancelling the assignment and resuming the land. In this view of the matter, by not giving a notice to the petitioner, respondent No.1 has not violated the provisions of Section 166-B. As no opportunity of personal hearing is envisaged by the abovementioned provision except in the aforesaid situation, the petitioner cannot claim personal hearing as a matter of right, unless a specific request in that regard was made by her. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that any such request was made before respondent No.1. Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. As regards the order passed by respondent No.2, as no arguments have been advanced pointing out any illegality therein, I am not inclined to examine the said order on merits. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.8136 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed.