Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 190 (AP)

Cherukuri Srinivasulu v. Joint Collector

2025-01-30

CHALLA GUNARANJAN

body2025
Order : (CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.) The writ petition No.6937 of 2007 is instituted by the petitioner challenging the order of 1 st 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 passed by the 2 nd 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 1 st 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 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 4 th 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. That being so, in the year 2004, the petitioner was served caveat at the instance of the 4 th 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 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 4 th 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 3 rd respondent/Tahsildar visited the subject property on 21.03.2007 while petitioner was conducting agricultural operations and informed that the 1 st 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 1 st 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 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. 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 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 2 nd 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 granted in favour of the petitioner was upon proper inquiry and whereas patta alleged to have been granted in favour of the 4 th 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 4 th 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. 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 1 st respondent based on the reports of MRO and RDO rightly 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 1 st 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 4 th 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 4 th 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 1 st respondent having noticed the above irregularity, has rightly cancelled the same by impugned order and after 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 4 th respondent. 9. 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 4 th 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 contends that there is no material placed on record to show that the 4 th 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 2 nd 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 Ors , [MANU/AP/0389/2015] 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 4 th respondent vide proceedings No.F.Dis No.18/1395 dated 02.07.1985. The 4 th 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 once again assigned in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings No. F.Dis.No.38/1404 dated 30.06.1994. 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 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 1 st 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 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 4 th 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 1 st 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 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, 2006(6) ALT 90 and M. Radha Krishnaiah and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., MANU/AP/0811/2021 (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 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 4 th 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 4 th respondent herein and others, in which I.A. No.1182 of 2004 was also filed and said Court granted ad-interim injunction. 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 4 th 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 3 rd respondent/Tahsildar visited petitioner’s land on 21.03.2007 and informed his mother that in pursuance to the order passed by the 1 st 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 1 st respondent dated 13.03.2007, while cancelling the assignment, had also directed the 2 nd 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 1 st 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 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. 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. 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. 10. 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. 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 so 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. 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.” 17. In Telladarla Obanna @ Obaiah v. Government of A.P. and others, 2007 (1) APLJ 154 (HC) , 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, W.P. No.8277 of 2021, order dated 16.08.2021 , 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 in M.Radha Krishnaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P. No.8277 of 2021, order dated 16.08.2021 , 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 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 4 th 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 1 st 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 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 1 st respondent. 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 1 st respondent. The 1 st respondent, considering the fact that there was already assignment in favour of the 4 th 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 4 th respondent, besides considering the refusal of grant of temporary injunction by the civil Court, cancelled the assignment. This Court finds that the 1 st 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 4 th respondent way back on 02.07.1985 and that the 4 th respondent name was 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 4 th 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 1 st 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. The petitioner is conveniently silent as to whether he is landless poor person and entitled for assignment under BSO 15 and the 1 st 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. Therefore, the 1 st 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 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 4 th 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 4 th respondent was nonexistent. All the records and reports of MRO and RDO and revisional authority besides the 4 th respondent in unequivocable terms state that initially the assignment land was made in favour of the 4 th 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 2 nd respondent could not have initiated suomotu appeal in pursuance to the impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent and cancelled the pattadar passbook and title deed, for which reliance was placed on Ratnamma case ( supra ), t here 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. 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.