S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was cultivating an extent of ac. 2. 67 cents in survey no. 50/2 and Ac. 2-30 cents in Survey No. 50/3 of Kagathi village which are Government waste lands. He was cultivating the lands as Sivaijamdar from 1978 but d Form Patta was granted in his favour on December 11, 1989. By proceedings Roc. No. 2114 of 1990 dated September 30, 1990, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chowdepalli mandal, Chittoor district, the second respondent herein, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the patta granted in his favour should not be cancelled. It is the correctness of this show cause notice that is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the second respondent has no power under Board Standing Orders to cancel the patta.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 4 to 11 were impleaded as the parties to the writ petition on February 4, 1991.

( 3 ) NO counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1 to 3.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 4 to 11 filed a common counter affidavit raising various contentions with regard to the reasons which justify the cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the petitioner. Having regard to the question involved in the writ petition, I do not consider it necessary to narrate all those contentions here. It is stated inter alia that the impugned notice dated September 30, 1990 was issued to show cause as to why the d form Patta grated in favour of the petitioner, should not be cancelled and that it was not issued for revising the order granting patta as understood by the petitioner. It is stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer has power to issue the show cause notice and cancel the patta granted in favour of the petitioner.

( 5 ) SRI A. K. N. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the patta can be cancelled only under the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of clause (3) of paragraph (12) of Board Standing order 15 and if for any other reason the patta is to be cancelled, it is only under paragraph 18 of the Board Standing Order 15, the Collector or the board of Revenne, as the case may be, can do so, and therefore, the impugned notice is wholly without jurisdiction.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 11, on the other hand, contends that for violation of condition 20, the Mandal Revenue Officer, the second respondent herein, who is the granting authority, has power to cancel the patta; as such, the impugned notice is well within the jurisdiction of the second respondent.

( 7 ) ON the contentions raised before me, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the Mandal Revenue Officer has power to cancel the patta granted under paragraph 12 of the Board Standing Order 15 on the ground that the husband of the assignee was already given a d Form patta by the Tahsildar.

( 8 ) IT would be appropriate to refer to sub-para (3) of para (12) of the Board Standing Order 15, which enumerates the conditions of assignment, breach of which results in cancellation of patta. " (3) Terms and conditions of assignment : the assignment of lands shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) Lands assigned shall be heritable but not alienable. (B) Lands assigned shall be brought under cultivation within three years. (C) No land tax shall be collected for the first three years except for the extent, if any, which has already been brought under cultivation. Water rate shall, however, be charged if the lands are irrigated with Government water; and (D) Cultivation should be by the assignee or the members of his family or with hired labour under the supervision of himself or a member of his family. "the note appended to this paragraph says that for breach of any of the conditions (a), (b), (c) above, the Government will be at liberty to resume the land and assign it to whomsoever they like. Note (iii) which is material for our purpose reads as follows :" (III) Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsildars in independent char

Click Here to Read the rest of this document