The power of the Collector to cancel an assignment of government land under Section 166-B of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act is not subject to any limitation period, and the delay in taking action is not fatal unless innocent third party interests have crept in or where the fraud or misrepresentation is so glaring and patent carrying out for judicial correction.

P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) THE Joint Collector, Warangal, by his proceedings dated 7-11-83 cancelled the assignment of the Government land made in favour of the petitioners in exercise of his powers vested in him under Sec. 166-B of A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act and directed the Tahsildar, Parkal to assign the lands to the eligible landless poor persons. In the year 1968 these lands had been assigned to six persons on the basis that these six persons were landless poor persons. Upon a representation made by the harijans of Dammannapet village that those assignees were not landless poor persons and the assignment was illegally made by Patwari the Joint collector, Warangal, issued notice to the petitioners directing them to show cause as to why the assignment of the Government lands made in their favour should not be cancelled by invoking Sec. 166-B of the aforementioned Act. They were also directed to appear before the court to answer the notice. From the order of cancellation it appears that inspite of "service of notices and affording a dozen opportunities, the respondents neither appeared before the court nor filed any counter to the show cause notice . The Court found on the basis of an inquiry made by the Tahsildar that none of those six respondents i. e. , respondents 1 to 4 and 6 were landless poor persons at the time the assignment was made and that therefore, they were not eligible to the assignment of the Government land. The Tahsildar s report also revealed that one of those six persons was even fictitious. There was no person in the village by the name of the 5th respondent i. e. , Gangula Samaiah. The Tahsildar reported that the very land assigned to the petitioners had been under the occupation of the harijans of the village in the year 1978 and that since the Harijans have been cultivating the same without any interference from the respondents. On the basis of the above facts, the Joint Collector, Warangal passed an order on 7-11-83 cancelling the assignment made in favour of the respondents. Immediately thereafter, the aforementioned respondents, who are the writ petitioners, had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 c. P. C. before the Joint Collector, Warangal to set aside his order dated 7-11-83 and to rehear the matter and decide it on merits. Their justification for not being present before the Joint Collector is that one veeraiah who was looking after their litigation was ill at the time of passing of the order and had expired late and therefore they could not attend the hearing before the Joint Collector, On that footing the respondents argued that they had no knowledge of the order passed by the Joint collector on 7-11-83 and that they had come to know of the passing of the order by. the Joint Collector only on 3-4-84. This application made to the joint Collector was rejected by him both on the grounds of law and fact. He found that sufficient opportunities had been afforded to the respondents and that a dozen adjournments had been granted to them. It was also noted that there was delay in filing Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. application and the same was not properly explained and that in any case, Order 9 rule 13 C. P. C. application would not be maintainable. It was on that basis, the Joint Collector had dismissed the application filed by the respondents. It was against that order of the Joint Collector, Warangal, the present writ petition has been filed.

( 2 ) THE principal argument of Sri Pratap Reddy is that assuming that the order of the Joint Collector, as correct, the Collector had erred in exercising his powers under Sec. 166-B of the aforementioned Act after this length of time in the year 1983. He relied upon two judgments one reported in A. Kodanda Rao vs Govt. of A. P. which was a case decided under the A. P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1948 and another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of Gujarat vs. P. Raghav I find from the lan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document