Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 23 mar 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI + WRIT PETITION NO.19079 OF 2017 

% Dated 23.03.2022 

W.P.No.19079 of 2017 

# 

Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar 

s/o Korrapati Anjaneyulu 

occ: Serviceman in Indian Army 

R/o Konanki Village, Martur Mandal 

Prakasam district 

Presently at 18 Armoured Brigade Signal Company c/o 546 APO ….. Petitioner 

Vs. 

$ 

The State of Andhra Pradesh 

Rep. by its Principal Secretary, 

Revenue (Assignment), Department, 

Secretariat, Velagapudi 

Amaravati, Guntur District & 7 others ……Respondents 

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 23.03.2022 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers 

may be allowed to see the Judgments? 

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be  

marked to Law Reporters/Journals 

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to  

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

2 

* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 

+ WRIT PETITION NO.19079 OF 2017 

% Dated 23.03.2022 

W.P.No.19079 of 2017 

# 

Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar 

s/o Korrapati Anjaneyulu 

occ: Serviceman in Indian Army 

R/o Konanki Village, Martur Mandal 

Prakasam district 

Presently at 18 Armoured Brigade Signal Company 

c/o 546 APO ….. Petitioner Vs. 

$ 

The State of Andhra Pradesh 

Rep. by its Principal Secretary, 

Revenue (Assignment), Department, 

Secretariat, Velagapudi 

Amaravati, Guntur District & 7 others ……Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Roy Reddy  

^ Counsel for the respondents :  

1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 – Government Pleader for Revenue 2. Respondent No.6 – Government Pleader for School Education 3. Respondent No.8 – Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma 

<GIST: 

> HEAD NOTE: 

? Cases referred 

1. 1964 SC 477 

2. (2014) 9 SCC 105 

3. (2021) 2 SCC 551 

4. (2001) 6 SCC 260 

5. W.P.No.2397 of 2021 and WPMP No.2703 of 2021 dated  17.09.2021 

6. AIR 1971 S.C 862. 

7. 1995 (1) ALD 484 

8. (2006) 7 SCC 592 

9. (1978) 1 SCC 405 

10.AIR 1952 SC 16 

11.(2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 502 

12.AIR 1952 SC 16

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

3 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.19079 OF 2017 

ORDER:  

1) One Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar filed this writ  petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ  of certiorari, challenging the Order in D.Dis.No.E5/1861/2016  dated 02.05.2017 passed by the third respondent-Joint Collector 

and to set-aside the same. 

2) The facts of the case in nut-shell are that, the petitioner is a  native of Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District,  serving in the Indian Army since 13.09.2005 as soldier, presently serving as Lance Naik at 18 Armoured Brigade Signal Company  c/o 99 APO. When the petitioner was working at 12 Corps Air  Support Signal Unit, the Commanding Officer of the Unit addressed a letter dated 26.12.2009 to the District Officer,  Prakasam District, duly forwarding the request of the petitioner for  assignment of Government Land. In pursuance of the letter of the  Commanding Officer and as per B.S.O.15 that, both ex-servicemen  as well as serving soldiers are entitled to claim assignment of  government land. The petitioner was assigned total extent of  Ac.3-43 cents of land in different survey numbers in Konanki  Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, vide D.K.No.1/1420 F  dated 16.06.2011. The name of the petitioner was entered in the  Record of Rights (Khata No.1995) and pattadar passbooks and title  deeds were issued in his favour. The petitioner is in possession of  the above land and online adangal also reflects his name. 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

4 

3) While so, one Shaik Mahaboob Basha, resident of Ongole  describing him as High Court Advocate interfered with the land of  this petitioner and started sending petitions and complaints. On  07.08.2014, the Commanding Officer addressed a letter to the  District Collector, Prakasam, informing about the harassment  being meted out by the petitioner due to acts of one Thanneru  Ramanjaneyulu of Bollapally Village and also the conduct of  advocate by name Shaik Mahaboob Basha. In the said letter, it was  intimated that a serving soldier is also entitled for assignment of  Government Land. The Commanding Officer also further addressed  a letter dated 02.06.2016 to the Hon‟ble Chief Minister and District  Authorities. 

4) The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, purportedly in  exercise of Revisional power conferred under BSO 15(18)(1), took  up suo-motu revision in D.Dis.No.E5/1861/2016 and passed an  order on 02.05.2017, cancelling the assignment granted to the  petitioner and the same is impugned in the present writ petition. 

5) The petitioner contended that the Revisional powers under  B.S.O.15(18)(1) can only be exercised if the Revisional authority 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  misrepresentation, he may in the case of an order passed by an  officer subordinate to him, set aside, cancel or in any way modify  the decision”.

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

5 

6) In the instant case, the parameters of the aforesaid provision  i.e. BSO-15(18)(1) are nowhere satisfied and the said provision is  not at all attracted to the assignment made in his favour. The said  assignment was made strictly in adherence to the procedure  contemplated in BSO-15, with a recommendation from the then  Commanding Officer. The matter was also placed before the  Assignment Committee and the chairman of the Assignment  Committee i.e. the then M.L.A., who has signed on the application  and also affixed his official stamp. The request was only thereafter  forwarded to the assigning authority i.e. the Tahsildar, Martur  Mandal. 

7) It is the specific contention that suo-motu revision was  taken-up at the behest of the aforesaid advocate by name Shaik  Mahaboob Basha, who is a busy body and who has nothing to do  with the subject land, which was assigned to a serving soldier.  Shaik Mahaboob Basha and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole  are shown as the “Complainants” in the said revision.  

8) It is further contended that, no notice of any nature was  served on the petitioner by the Joint Collector, Prakasam at any  point of time. In the impugned order, dated 02.05.2017 (which was  served on 29.05.2017 to petitioner‟s brother Sri K.Krishna  Murthy), it is shown that registered notices were issued on 7  occasions, but it is not shown that they were served on the 

petitioner. Further, the Administrative Officer of the 33 Corps Air  Support Signal Unit C/o 99 APO had intimated to the District  Collector, Prakasam District (R-2) that 3 registered post articles  sent in the name of “K.Krishna Kumar” are returned, since no such 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

6 

person is posted in the unit. Evidently, even the petitioner‟s name  was incorrectly shown on the postal covers, which were not served  on the petitioner. The gross negligence on the part of the  respondent is writ large ex facie. In the impugned order, it is  shown that the Tahsildar made an effort to serve a notice on  petitioner family members, who are stated to have refused the  same and no such effort was made to effect such service nor was  substituted service effected by affixing it on petitioner‟s house, in  the village. As such, the impugned order is in utter violation of the  principles of natural justice and has been passed behind the  petitioner.  

9) It is submitted that the impugned proceedings have been  passed wholly without jurisdiction and without issuing notice to  the petitioner and have been issued on the wrong assumption that  serving soldiers are not entitled for assignment under B.S.O-15.  There is a reference to the statement made by the Director of  Sainik Welfare, A.P. in a video conference, saying that “the serving  soldier was not entitled for grant of a patta”, which is quite  contrary to the purport of B.S.O-15. Further, it is also stated in the impugned order that clarification is awaited from the Chief  Commissioner Land Administration, on the subject. There is also a 

reference to Government Memo, dated 28.02.2017 in the impugned  order and a further reference to a decision of this Court in  W.P.No.28209 of 2014. In the said order, this Court disagreed with  the view of the Director, Sainik Welfare, that only Ex-servicemen  are entitled for assignment. Curiously, the Joint Collector,  Prakasam District (R-3) ordered cancellation of petitioner‟s 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

7 

assignment. This is indicative of total non-application of mind on  the part of the Revisional authority. 

The main grounds urged in the writ petition are: 

a) The impugned order, dt.02.05.2017 passed by the 3rd respondent, is  illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction, violative of the principles  of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 – A of the  Constitution of India and suffers from errors apparent on the face of  the record. 

b) The 3^rd respondent could not have invoked the revisional jurisdiction  under BSO-15 Para- 18(1) in the instant case, inasmuch as none of  the prescribed parameters for such exercise of revisional jurisdiction  have been satisfied. 

c) The 3^rd respondent failed to see that it was not a case of material  irregularity in the procedure or decision being grossly inequitable or  exceeding of powers by the assigning authority or mistake of fact or  fraud/misrepresentation and as such, ought not to have taken-up the  so called revision. 

d) The 3^rd respondent failed to see that the assignment granted to the  petitioner was strictly in terms of the procedure prescribed in BSO-15  Para-11 (2)(1)(g) and that the request of the petitioner was forwarded  through and recommended by the Commanding Officer of the Army  Unit, in which the petitioner was serving at that point of time. 

e) The 3^rd respondent failed to notice that BSO-15 Para-11(2)(1)(g) is in force and that, serving soldiers are entitled for assignment under the  Dharkast Rules and ought not to have cancelled the assignment after  a lapse of 6 years. 

f) The 3^rd respondent’s decision is not in consonance with the various  circulars of the Government of India and the Army Head Quarters  and it also renders BSO-15 Para- 11(2)(1)(g) otiose and nugatory,  which is wholly impermissible in law. 

g) The impugned order was passed without any notice to the writ  petitioner and hence, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. h) The 3^rd respondent referred to BSO-15 Para-11 (2)(1)(g) and also took  note of the fact that this Hon’ble Court had rendered a decision on  the issue of assignments to serving soldiers and that, the revisional  authority had sought for a clarification from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, on the issue and this being  the case, ought not to have cancelled the assignment granted to the 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

8 

writ petitioner, which was bonafide, proper and in terms of the  Dharkasth Rules. 

i) The finding that the assignment was made without the approval of  the Assignment Committee, is baseless and is perverse, more  particularly in the light of the fact that the assigning authority  (Tahsildar) had reported that the Dharkast File was not available and  also in the light of the fact that Hon‟ble M.L.A, Purchur, Chairman of  the Assignment Committee had signed and affixed his stamp on the  application of the petitioner. 

j) The impugned order of the 2^nd respondent has the effect of defeating  the State policy of providing relief to serving soldiers and also has the  effect of rendering otiose the relevant provisions of the Dharkast  Rules. 

k) The observation of the 3^rd respondent in Para-2 of the impugned  order, dt.02.05.2017 that G.O.Ms.No.743, dt.30.04.1963 allowed  grant of patta to Ex-servicemen only, is perverse and shows that the  revisional authority totally neglected the other relevant provisions of  BSO-15 dealing with grants to serving soldiers. 

l) The parameters for issuance of a writ of certiorari, as laid down by  the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Yakub vs. Radhakrishnan¹ are  satisfied in the instant case.  

10) It is contended that the order impugned in the present writ  petition is vitiated by serious infirmities, both substantive and  procedural which rendered the order illegal. It is also contended  that the order passed by the Joint Collector is totally contrary to  B.S.O.15(11)(2)(1). On the other hand, the finding recorded by the  Joint Collector was to the effect that the assignment was not  approved by the Assignment Committee, which is baseless and  perverse, in view of the report of the Tahsildar and that the order of  the Joint Collector impugned in the writ petition is ex facie illegal  and sought to quash the same exercising power under Article 226  

of the Constitution of India by issuing writ of certiorari. 

¹ AIR 1964 SC 477

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

9 

11) The third respondent – Joint Collector, Prakasam District,  Ongole filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter  alia, admitting that Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar s/o  Korrapati Anjaneyulu is serving in Indian Army and permanent  resident of Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District. 

12) It is contended that, as per the connected DK file traced out  recently by the Tahsildar, Martur, the Commanding Officer has  forwarded the application of the petitioner for grant of government  land in Sy.Nos.465/A & B of Konanki Village to the District  Collector and the District Collector has forwarded the same to the  Tahsildar, Martur through Re.E2/71/2009, dated 24/1/2010 for  enquiry, field inspection and report compliance within a fortnight  about the action taken. The said letter of the Commanding Officer  marked to the Tahsildar, Martur was also found endorsed by the  then Hon’ble MLA, Parchur Assembly Constituency. The Letter dated 24.04.2010 of the District Collector was forwarded by the  Tahsildar, Martur, on 01.06.2011, to the Additional Revenue  Inspector, Martur, for detailed report immediately. The then  Additional Revenue Inspector, Martur who got enquired into the  matter has reported through his Dis.88/2011, dated 07/06/2011,  that the present petitioner Sri Korrapati Kishore Kumar was a  bachelor, his family was not having any agricultural Land and that  the individual was eligible for assignment of the vacant land in  S.Nos.465/1,2,3,5 of Konanki Village, Martur Mandal. Accordingly,  the then Tahsildar, Martur Mandal has issued D.K Patta vide  DK.1/1420F, dated 16/6/2011 to Sri Korrapati Kishore Kumar for  the extent admeasuring Ac.0-85 in Sy.No.465/1, Ac.0-85 in 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

10 

Sy.No.465/2, Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.465/3 & Ac.0-73 in Sy.No.465/5 of  Konanki village of Martur Mandal, without placing the proposal  and getting the approval of the Assignment Committee of Martur  Mandal. 

13) Respondent No.3 also admitted about issue of Pattadar Pass  Book and Title Deed with Khata No.1195, on which, Sri Shaik  Mahaboob Basha, High Court Advocate, has issued a Legal Notice  Dated 12.07.2014, stating that assignment has to be made to the  servicemen, who retired from service and the application should be  made within 12 months from the date of discharge from service, as  per G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 30/4/1963 of Revenue Department. He  also stated that Mr.Tanneeru Ramanjaneyulu, S/o Jayaramaiah,  R/o Bollapalli Village, Martur Mandal, Army No.14345741 Y Rank  L/HAV, retired from service represented for grant of land before six  months of his retirement through proper channel of his Unit  address, to the District Collector and that copies sent to the MRO,  Martur, RDO, Ongole, VRO and Revenue Inspector, dated  07.11.1995 and that the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Ongole  also recommended application and addressed letter to the MRO,  Martur, on 24/11/199, as per the above G.O and waiting for  sanction. But, Mr. Korrapati Kishore Kumar, who joined in the  Armed Services on 01/11/2009 forwarded his application within 1  year of service, i.e., 26.12.2009 who is serving soldier and getting  more than Rs.20,000/- as salary had taken undue advantage,  influenced the Revenue authorities through political persons  obtained Patta for a total extent of Acs.3-43 Cents in S.No.465/1, 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

11 

465/2, 465/3 and 465/5 of Konanki Village, though he was a  bachelor and he and his family were having Patta lands. 14) The District Collector, Ongole has, vide Lr.No.L.Dis.  E2/1817/2014 Dt: 06.08.2014, forwarded the above legal notice,  while instructing the Tahsildar, Martur to go through the contents  of the Lawyer Notice, enquire and take necessary action as per  rules in force and report compliance. Accordingly, the Tahsildar,  Martur, who got enquired into the matter, has reported to the  Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole that the petitioner was a  bachelor at the time of assignment and he is still in service at  present and that his family was also having Acs.2-00 Cents of  Patta land in Konanki Village and that therefore the above  assignment made to the individual was contradictory to the  provisions of G.O.No.743, Dated 30/04/1963 of Revenue  Department and BSO 15 (11) (ii). 

15) Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole has, in  Lr. RC/C/1466/2015 Dt: 01.06.2016, submitted report to the  District Collector, stating that the assignee (writ petitioner) is a  serving soldier and whereas as per G.O.Ms.No.743 Revenue Dt:  30.04.1963, only Ex Service Men are entitled for grant of DK pattas  and that the Director, Sainik Welfare has, vide Lr. No.4870/E&W/ 

2007 Dt: 25.06.2007, assured not to entertain any applications, for  assignment of lands, received directly from serving soldiers or  Commanding Officers, on behalf of serving soldiers and to return  all such applications with an advice that the applicant must route  his application, only after his retirement, through Zilla Sainik  Welfare Officer and whereas in this case, the Writ Petitioner has 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

12 

submitted his application, within 2 months from the date of his  joining in service and that he was bachelor at the time of  assignment and that, therefore, the assignment made to the  petitioner was contradictory to the G.O.Ms.No.743 and B.S.O  15(11)(ii) and therefore the said assignment deserves cancellation. 

16) After receipt of report by the Revenue Divisional Officer,  Ongole, and after due examination the then Joint Collector has taken up the matter, as suo motu revision, under BSO 15(18)(1)  and accordingly issued a Show Cause Notice Dt: 26.08.2016  issued, in File No.COLPKM-ESECOLAS/11/2016-JA (E6) to the  petitioner, requiring him to show cause, as to why the DK patta  granted to him should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned  therein. The case was adjourned from time to time by the then  Joint Collector and totally 7 notices were issued to the petitioner,  by RPAD, to the following address: 

“33 Corps, Air Support Signals Unit, C / o 99 Army Post  Office, PIN 917633.” 

17) The notices dated 26.08.2016, 07.11.2016, 22.11.2016,  21.12.2016, 17.01.2017 and 28.02.2017, all sent by registered  post with acknowledgment due and were found as, ” consignment  details not found”, as per the information obtained from the  website www.indianpost.gov.in of the postal department and  with regard to the notice dated 26.03.2017, it was recorded in the  said website that the bag was dispatched to 1710 FPO on  04.04.2017. As the 7 notices were found to be not served, the 8^th 

notice Dt: 01.04.2017 was addressed to his permanent residential  address and sent to the Tahsildar, Martur, for service and the 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

13 

Tahsildar in his Lr.No.RC/C/51/2017 dated 08.04.2017,  submitted a report, stating that the family members of the  petitioner herein have refused to receive the notice and therefore  affixed it on the house of the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat as  well. 

18) The Joint Collector, besides issuing Show Cause Notice to  the petitioner against the DK patta issued to him, has also, vide  this office Lr. No.RC/E2/1861/2016 Dt: 14.06.2016, called for the  connected record in which the petitioner was granted DK patta,  from the Tahsildar, Martur. In reply to the said letter, the  Tahsildar, Martur has, in his Lr.No.RC/A/129/2014 dated 

18.06.2016, stated that a thorough search was made in his office  for the connected DK file; but it was not available and enclosed an  attested copy of the relevant page of the DK register, which shows  that the petitioner herein was assigned DK patta for the land in  question. 

19) The then Joint Collector, has taken up the suo motu  revision, relying on the letter No.4870/E&W /2007 Dt: 25.06.2007  of the Director, Sainik Welfare, AP, Hyderabad and the recent  instructions of the said Director, in the Video Conference,  reiterating the earlier instructions and the report of the Revenue  Divisional Officer, Ongole, in RC/C/1466 6/2015 Dt: 01.06.2016,  in which he has submitted proposals for cancellation of the DK  patta in question and the report Dt: 18.06.2016 in  RC/A/129/2014 of the Tahsildar, Martur, wherein he has reported  that the assignment was made, without the approval of the  Assignment Committee. It is further submitted that the file was not 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

14 

earlier available, but, traced recently on proper search and  therefore, failure to furnish copies is not a ground to set-aside the  order. 

20) It is specifically contended that, patta was cancelled on two  grounds and they are as follows: 

(i) To examine as to whether the DK patta was granted to the  petitioner herein, duly specifying the conditions mentioned  in the said BSO 15(11)(2)(ii)(g) , the Tahsildar has reported,  vide his Lr. No.RC/A/129 /2014 Dt: 18.06.2016, that the DK  file in which the petitioner was granted DK patta was not  available, even after thorough search. 

(ii) The assignment was not made, with the approval of the  Assignment Committee, as reported by the Tahsildar, Martur  vide letter dated 18.06.2016. 

21) Respondent No.3 admitted that B.S.O.15(11)(2)(ii)(g) though  not considered as it was brought to the notice at the time of issue  of show cause notice dated 26.08.2016, but it was taken note in  Paragraph No.5 of the impugned order, even without  representation from the petitioner. Therefore, it is an irregularity.  Apart from that, the assignment was issued without approval of  Assignment Committee and it is a material irregularity under  B.S.O.15(18)(1), as such, cancellation of patta is in accordance  with law. 

22) Respondent No.3 further improved the case alleging that,  while issuing DKT patta, Tahsildar committed the following  material irregularities: 

(i) The A1 notice, inviting the objections against the proposed  grant was not published, as required under BSO 15-B (6). 

(ii) That the fact of application was not published by beat of tom  tom in the village, as required under 15-B (6). 

(iii) That the application was not sent to the VRO, for complying  with the above 2 stages of work, as required under BSO 15(6)  

and also there is no report of the VRO in the prescribed format. 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

15 

“A Memorandum”, as required under BSO 15-B(6), which  

should have been attested by the literate residents of the  

village. 

(iv) The Govt. have also, vide Memo No.44577/Assn.POT(2)/2007- 1 dated 24.09.2007, given under BSO 15-B(6), that the  

procedure of assignment of Govt. land, as stipulated under  

BSO 15-B should be followed strictly. 

(v) Also, it was not placed in the Assignment Revenue Committee” 

23) On account of those irregularities, granting assignment in  favour of this petitioner, assigning an extent of Ac.3-43 cents in  Konanki Village, Martur Mandal is vitiated by serious irregularity  and therefore, the assignment was cancelled by exercising power of  revision by the Joint Collector in terms of B.S.O.156(18) of the  Andhra Pradesh Board Revenue Standing Orders. Consequently,  the order impugned in the writ petition warrants no interference by  this Court to set-aside the same, exercising power under Article  226 of the Constitution of India and requested to dismiss the writ  petition. 

24) Respondent No.8 also filed a detailed counter affidavit,  denying material allegations, while admitting grant of patta in  favour of this petitioner on the application forwarded by the  Commanding Officer, 12 Corps Air Support Signal Unit c/o 56  APO, but, specifically contended that the government issued Memo  No.44577/Assn.POT(2)/2007-1 dated 24.09.2007 under  B.S.O.15-B, specifying the procedure of assignment of government  land and they are as follows: 

(i) The A1 notice, inviting the objections against the proposed grant  was not published. 

(ii) The application of the writ petitioner was not published by beat of  tom tom in the village 

(iii) That the application was not sent to the VRO, for complying with the  above 2 stages of work 

(iv) There is no report of the VRO in the prescribed format. “A  Memorandum”, which should have been attested by the literate  residents of the village; as required under BSO 15-B(6);

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

16 

(v) The application was not placed before the Assignment Review  Committee.  

25) Respondent No.8 pleaded ignorance about letters dated  07.08.2014 and 02.06.2016 from the Unit Officers of the writ  petitioner as there is no dispute as to the entitlement of a serving  soldier for assignment of government land. But the question in the  writ petition is only to the extent of compliance of procedural  specifications for issue of patta while processing the application of  eligible persons like this petitioner. However, noting the  irregularities, assignment issued in favour of this petitioner,  Respondent No.3 passed the impugned order in exercise of suo  motu power conferred on him by B.S.O.15(18). 

26) It is contended that, Respondent No.8 joined in Army as  Artillery Gunman on 13.02.1980, served Indian Army for 17 years  and discharged from service on 01.03.1996. About six months  prior to his discharge on 06.11.1995, as a serving soldier,  Respondent No.8 applied for assignment of land through proper  channel and the application was duly forwarded by the Unit Head  routing through the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Ongole on  24.11.1995 to the 5^th Respondent as per the provisions of  G.O.Ms.No.743 Revenue (B) Department, dt. 10.04. 1963. Since no  action was taken once again Respondent No.8 submitted another  application which was forwarded by the District Sainik Welfare  Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole to the 2^nd Respondent. Once  again Respondent No.8 submitted representations on 03.06 2010,  28.05.2007, 19.12.2011, 2011 etc., to the 2^nd Respondent. On  08.03.2014, the Gram Panchayat, Konanki has passed a resolution 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

17 

expressing no objection for assignment of the land in question to  Respondent No.8. Since no action is being taken, Respondent No.8  got issued a legal intimation through 7^th Respondent to the District  Sainik Welfare Officer, Prakasam District to the official  Respondents and to the Unit Officer of the Writ Petitioner. The Unit  Office sent Lr.dt: 23.07.2014 advising to interact directly with  individual at his present address stated at para No.2. Later, the 2^nd 

Respondent has sent Lr.L. Dis.No. E2/1817/2014, dt: 06.08.2014  to the 5^th Respondent enclosing copy of the legal intimation and  requesting to take necessary action as per Rules in force under  proper reply to the Advocate and report compliance to his office.  Once again Respondent No.8 sent another representation dated  18.08.2014 to the 5^th Respondent. No reply was given to  Respondent No.8. After some time, the 5^th Respondent has  addressed Lr.Rc.No.A1/129/2014 dt: 25.08.2014 to the 4^th 

Respondent reporting that the bachelor at the time of assignment,  that the petitioner was a still in service, that his family has got  Ac.2.00 cts of patta land in Konanki village, that the assignment  made to the Writ Petitioner is contrary to the provisions of  G.O.Ms.No.743, dt: 30.04.1963 and deserves for cancellation etc.  Respondent No.8 submitted another representation on 08.09.2014  to the 3^rd Respondent. On 05.10.2014, Respondent No.8 and the  village elders have sent a written complaint/representation to the  authorities requesting to cause enquiry into the matter. On  16.09.2015 once again Gram Panchayat, Konanki has passed  detailed resolution to take action against the Writ Petitioner for  misrepresenting the facts to the Government, cancel the 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

18 

assignment made to him and assign the land in question to  Respondent No.8. The 4^th Respondent has also sent Lr. Rc.  N0.C/1466/2015 dt: 16.09.2015 to the 5^th Respondent enclosing a  copy of the legal intimation dt: 12.07.2015 from 7^th Respondent  and requesting to enquire into the matter and take appropriate  action as per Rules etc. Thereupon the 5^th Respondent has sent  Lr.Rc. No. A1/129/2014 dt: 05.10.2015 to the 4^th Respondent that  earlier he has already sent his report dated 25.08.2014 in the  matter and enclosing once again a copy of the same. In the above  circumstances, the 3^rd Respondent has taken up the matter in suo  motu revision, sent notices to the Writ Petitioner and finally passed  the impugned orders. Thereupon, Respondent No.8 submitted a  representation dated 27.05.2017 to the 3^rd Respondent requesting  to issue pattadar pass books in his favour. Respondent No.8  denied the other allegations made against him, by this petitioner  regarding harassment and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 

27) During hearing, Sri Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the  petitioner would contend that, suo motu power can be exercised  strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under B.S.O.15(18)  by the third respondent and before cancellation of patta based on  any of the grounds enumerated in B.S.O.15(18), a notice has to be  served in compliance of principles of natural justice and procedure.  But, without serving any notice to this petitioner, assignment was  cancelled by exercising suo motu power. Apart from that, the  reason mentioned in the show cause notice dated 26.08.2016 is  different from the reason mentioned in the final order dated  02.05.2017. But, the third respondent improved the case on the 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

19 

allegation of irregularity to exercise power under B.S.O.15(18) even  without issuing notice to this petitioner by way of show cause  notice dated 26.08.2016 and invented a different cause for the first  time and passed the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 without  issuing notice to the petitioner about such ground for cancellation  of patta. 

28) More curiously, the third respondent again improved his  case about non-compliance of the procedure in the counter  affidavit which is not a ground for passing the impugned order.  Thus, it is evident from the order impugned in the writ petition and 

counter affidavit filed by the third respondent that the impugned order is vitiated by malafides. Improvement of the case of  cancellation of patta by the third respondent itself indicates that  the impugned order was passed with a malafide intention somehow  to deprive the petitioner from claiming the benefit of assignment,  being a serving soldier, though the eighth respondent in the  counter affidavit admitted that a serving soldier is entitled to claim  patta as per the Board of Revenue Standing Orders. Therefore, the  order impugned in the writ petition is vitiated by serious  irregularities and requested to set-aside the same by placing  reliance in the order in W.P.No.26046 of 2018 dated 31.12.2018  passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State  of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. 

29) Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Revenue  contended that, there are as many as three irregularities, more  particularly, non-compliance of the procedure in granting patta in  favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar. The second respondent 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

20 

narrated various irregularities in processing the application of the  petitioner by the concerned Army officials, so also by the revenue  officials to grant patta in favour of this petitioner. Therefore, the  Joint Collector exercised suo motu power of revision under  B.S.O.15(18) and rightly cancelled the patta. It is also contended  that, sending notice to the petitioner‟s permanent address at  Konanki Village, which was refused by the parents of this  petitioner is sufficient service for all practical purposes to cancel  the patta under B.S.O.15(18) and thereby, the order impugned in  the writ petition cannot be set-aside. 

30) Whereas, Respondent No.8 while highlighting the  irregularities in grant of patta in favour of the writ petitioner with  reference to B.S.O.15(18), pointed out the action of the second  respondent in not granting assignment in his favour, though he  made several applications, while admitting about entitlement of the  serving soldier to claim benefit of assignment and requested to  dismiss the writ petition, affirming the order passed by the Joint  Collector. 

31) Considering rival contentions, perusing the material  available on record, the points that need be answered by this Court  are as follows: 

1) Whether the reason mentioned in the show cause notice  dated 26.08.2016 is a ground to cancel the patta by  exercising suo motu power by the Joint Collector? 

2) Whether inventing a different ground in the order  impugned dated 02.05.2017 and in the counter affidavit  regarding procedural non-compliance vitiates the order  passed by the third respondent, exercising power under  B.S.O.15(18). If so, whether the order impugned in the 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

21 

writ petition be quashed issuing writ of certiorari,  exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India? 

P O I N T Nos. 1 & 2: 

32) As both points are inter-connected, I find it expedient to  decide both the points by common discussion. 

33) Issue of patta in favour of this petitioner assigning an extent  of Ac.3-43 cents in Konanki Village, Marturu Mandal, Prakasam  District, based on the application submitted by this petitioner  through Commanding Officer and cancellation of patta by the Joint  Collector exercising power under B.S.O.15(18) are not in dispute.  But, the only dispute is with regard to passing of final order dated  02.05.2017 on different ground than the ground mentioned in the  show cause notice dated 26.08.2016. Therefore, before deciding  other aspects, it is appropriate to decide the first contention based  on the material available on record.  

34) A show cause notice in RC/E2/1861/2016 dated  26.08.2016 was allegedly issued to the petitioner for cancellation of  patta granted in his favour. In the subject of show cause notice, it  is stated that the petitioner is found ineligible for grant of patta.  The reason stated in the show cause notice 26.08.2016 calling for  explanation is as follows: 

(1) The individual was assigned Ac.3.43 cent of Govt. land of  Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.465 65/1, Ac: 0.85 cents in .465/2  

Ac:1.00 cents in 165/3 , Ac.0.73 cents in Sy.No.465/5 of  

Konanki Martur Mandal, vide serial No.1995,  

0D.K.1/1420F and file No.678/2007, dated:  

16/06/2011, whereas, as per G.O.Ms.No.743, dated:  

30.04.1963, the application should be made within 12  

months from the date of discharge or in the case of death  

on active service, from the date of intimation to the family  

of the deceased and whereas the application by the  

individual for assignment is contradictory to the said  

provision. This shows that the individual had no even 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

22 

eligibility to apply for grant of the land, as on the date of  

the application for the same. 

(2) The Director, Sainik Welfare has addressed a letter to the  District Collector Prakasam District, Ongole, vide letter  

870/E8 W/2007 dated: 25.06.2007, which also reiterate  

that the application, for assignment of land by Ex- Service  

Men, should be submitted within 12 months from the date  

of discharge and the said letter also asked the District  

Collectors not to entertain the applications for assignment  

of land coming directly from the serving soldiers or  

Commanding Officers, on behalf of serving soldiers,  

whereas the application of K.Kishore Kumar was  

entertained and forwarded by the District Collector, vide  

R/E2/71 /2009 Dt: 24.04.2010, to the Tahsildar, Martur,  

contrary to the directions of the Director. 

(3) Sri Korrapati kishore Kumar who had got assigned land of  Acs.3-43 under konanki Village of Martur Mandal had  

forwarded his applications through his unit C /o 56 APO,  dated: 26.12.2009, he himself admitted that he was  

serving in the army since 1^st November 2009 and as such  

the grant of DK patta for the land in question to him is  

irregular. 

35) Based on the above grounds, the third respondent – Joint  Collector called upon the petitioner to explain as to why patta  should not be cancelled. 

36) One of the contentions of the petitioners is that, notice was  not served upon him. But, that will be examined at appropriate  stage. 

37) The reason assigned in the impugned Order dated  02.05.2017 for cancellation of patta of the petitioner is as follows: 

“5. After issue of to the Show Cause Notice, to the respondent, in  Even No. Dt: 26.08.2016, in another reference received from the  Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole in Rc.C/345/2015,  dt.15.08.2016, the eligibility of a serving soldier for assignment  was re-examined thoroughly and found that, as per BSO (15)(11)  (2)(2)(ii)(g) applications for assignment of lands from the soldiers  serving the army should be considered, in case their families  volunteer to take up cultivation, on their behalf, subject to the  condition if a jawan who has been allotted land is not de-mobilized  in the normal course but has been dismissed or court martialled,  the land assigned to such person would revert to the Govt., as  amended by Govt.Memo No.B1/3388/Rev, dated 11.01.1964, as  noted down in the BSO; but the Director Sainik welfare in Video  Conference held a few months back has stated that the serving  soldier was not entitled for grant of patta. Hence, the Special Chief  Secretary to Govt in Revenue Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh  was addressed to get the matter examined and clarify, as to 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

23 

whether Commissioner of Land Administration was also  addressed, vide this office BSO (15)(11)(2)(ii)(g) is an existence or  not. The Special Chief Secretary and Chief Lr.No.COLPKM ESEC/183/ 2016-JA(E6), dated 05.02.2017 to clarify the matter,  and the clarification from the both is awaited. At this juncture, the  Govt. Memo N0.24022/2014/Assn(V)/2017 dt.28.02.2017, has  been received referencing to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court,  dt.13.10.2014 in W.P.No.28209/2014, which shows that the  provision of allotment of land to serving soldiers can be made  subject to availability of land, also there is no reference in the said  Govt.Memo that the BSO (15)(11)(2)(ii)(g) is annulled. 

However to examine, as to whether the D.K.Patta was granted to  the respondent duly specifying the conditions mentioned in the  said BSO (15)(11)(2)(ii)(g), the Tahsildar, has reported vide R.C.A/129/2014 dt.18.06.2016, that the DK file in which the  respondent was granted DK patta is not available, even after  thorough search. The Tahsildar has further reported that the  said assignment was made, without the approval of the  Assignment Committee, which is not in accordance with  law.” 

38) It is evident from the extracted part of the order that, the  reason for cancellation of patta is the basis of report of Tahsildar,  where the Tahsildar reported that the assignment was made  without the approval of the Assignment Committee, but, it was not  the cause mentioned in the show cause notice issued to the  petitioner. Therefore, it is clear from the material on record that  the reason mentioned in the show cause notice dated 26.08.2016 

to submit his explanation as to why patta shall not be cancelled is  different from the reason mentioned in the impugned order dated  02.05.2017. In those circumstances, the petitioner is denuded  from an opportunity to rebut the allegation(s) made against him, if  the notice is actually served upon the petitioner. Therefore, it  amounts to denial of an opportunity violating the principles of  natural justice. Hence, such order cannot be sustained, in view of  the law declared by the Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services  vs. Government (NCT of Delhi)², wherein it was held that, serving  

² (2014) 9 SCC 105

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

24 

of show cause notice is to make the notice understand the precise  case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require  the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches  and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to  rebut the same. In UMC Technologies Private limited vs. Food  Corporation of India³, the Apex Court held that, that the legal  position is that the show cause notice to constitute the valid basis  of a blacklisting order, such notice must spell out clearly, or its  contents be such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom. Expressed its mind in the show cause notice so that the noticee  could have sent suitable reply for the same. In this case, the show  cause notice does not fulfil the requirements of the valid show  cause notice. In Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab⁴,  the Apex Court had held that the orders passed there one of the  requirement is that the principle of natural justice is with the  proper show cause notice to be served seeking explanation for any  omission or commission. It is clear that the facts constituting  gravamen of the charge have to be communicated. 

39) Following the same principles in the judgments referred  above, the Madras High Court in Ellora Restaurant vs.  Commissioner of Police⁵ held that the petitioner has to be put on  notice, calling for his explanation for all the reasons. Applying the  law laid down by the Apex Court and reiterated by the Madras  High Court in the judgments referred supra, the order passed by  

³ (2021) 2 SCC 551 

⁴ (2001) 6 SCC 260 

⁵ W.P.No.2397 of 2021 and WPMP No.2703 of 2021 dated 17.09.2021

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

25 

the Joint Collector which is impugned in the writ petition is liable  to be set-aside. 

40) Even as per Paragraph No.2 of impugned Order dated  02.05.2017, the Joint Collector took up suo motu revision on the  ground that the petitioner is a serving soldier, whereas,  G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963 allowed grant of patta to  Ex-servicemen only, those who make an application within 12  months from the date of discharge or in the case of death, on  active service from the date of intimation of the family of the  deceased and whereas the application by the petitioner, for  assignment, is contradictory to the said provision. Thus, it is  evident from the material on record that the reason mentioned for  proposed cancellation of patta in the show cause notice dated  26.08.2016 is that, the petitioner was not eligible, as he is a  serving soldier, since only ex-servicemen are entitled to claim DKT  Patta, in view of G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963. But, the  conclusion arrived at the end of the Order dated 02.05.2017 is  totally contrary to the reason mentioned in the show cause notice.  If, the show cause notice is served on this petitioner, the petitioner  would have submitted an appropriate reply to the show cause  notice rebutting the allegations made therein. But, after alleged  enquiry taken up by the Joint Collector suo motu, the cancellation  was not on the ground that the petitioner was not an  ex-serviceman, but on different ground that the patta was issued  without the approval of Assignment Committee. Thus, the  petitioner was deprived from rebutting the cause noted in the  impugned order by giving explanation, if the notice is served on 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

26 

him. Therefore, the Order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Joint  Collector on different grounds other than the grounds mentioned  in the show cause notice dated 26.08.2016 is ex-facie erroneous,  as it is in violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently,  the order is liable to be set-aside on this ground also. 

41) Turning to the other contention that the third respondent – Joint Collector did not serve any notice on this petitioner, enabling  him to submit his explanation to the show cause notice as to his  eligibility to obtain a patta while in service and without serving any  notice, the order was passed. On this ground also, the petitioner  sought to set-aside the order. 

42) B.S.O.15(18) enables the Joint Collector to take up suo motu revision to cancel the patta. But, in the instant case on record,  based on the notice got issued by one Mahaboob Basha, practicing  High Court Advocate, the file was examined and took up suo motu revision exercising power under B.S.O.15(18). According to  B.S.O.15(18)(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  misrepresentation 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 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

27 

giving the respondent a notice to show cause against the action  proposed to be taken adversely to him. Thus, it is clear from  B.S.O.15(18)(1) that, a notice is mandatory for cancellation of patta  or to set-aside or to pass any order on the grounds enumerated  therein by the Collector. 

43) The word „Collector‟ is defined under Section 2(2) of the Act  and according to it, „Collector‟ means the Collector of a district and  includes „Joint Collector‟ and in view of G.O.Ms.No.77 Revenue  dated 22.01.1968, work is distributed among the District Collector  and Joint Collector, the Joint Collector is vested with the power to  deal with matters relating to pattadar pass books assignment of  land. Hence, the Joint Collector is competent to review the orders  either on the application of either of the parties or by suo motu to  decide the legality, regularity of the order passed by the recording  authorities. Therefore, in view of G.O.Ms.No.77 Revenue dated  22.01.1968, the Joint Collector is competent to issue show cause  notice. 

44) Consciously, the third respondent – Joint Collector issued  show cause notice to the petitioner on 26.08.2016, calling upon  the petitioner to submit his explanation within the specified time.  But, as narrated in the impugned order and the allegations made  in the counter affidavit, show cause notice dated 26.08.2016,  notices dated 07.11.2016, 22.11.2016, 21.12.2016, 17.01.2017,  28.02.2017 and final notices dated 25.03.2017 and 01.04.2017  were sent to the address of the petitioner with name K. Krishna  Kumar, whereas, the name of the petitioner is Korrapati Kishore  Kumar. The petitioner admitted that he is holding the rank of 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

28 

Lance Naik and presently working at 18 Armoured Brigade Signal  Company c/o 99 APO. But, notices were sent to “33 Corps, Air  Support Signals Unit, c/o 99 Army Post office, PIN 917633”. The  details of eight notices sent to the petitioner and the mode of  service is enumerated in Paragraph No.8(c) of the counter affidavit  and the details are as follows: 

Sl.No	No & date of Notice  to the respondent	Mode of service	Result of service
1	Show cause notice  even No. dt.26.08.2016	Registered post  No.RN677981439IN Dt.30.08.2016	Consignment details not  found
2	Notice even No. dt.07.11.2016	Registered post  No.RN759919234IN Dt.10.11.2016	Consignment details not  found
3	Notice even No. dt.22.11.2016	Registered post  No.RN759929792IN Dt.25.11.2016	Consignment details not  found
4	Notice even No. dt.21.12.2016	Registered post  No.RN756796584IN Dt.24.12.2016	Consignment details not  found
5	Notice even No. dt.17.01.2017	Registered post  No.RN756872073IN Dt.18.01.2017	Consignment details not  found
6	Notice even No. dt.28.02.2017	Registered post  No.RN780174510IN Dt.28.02.2017	Consignment details not  found
7	Final Notice even No. Dt.25.03.2017	Registered post  No.RN770733007IN	Bag dispatched to 1710 FPO  on 04.04.17
8	Final Notice even No. Dt.01.04.2017	Registered post  On 04.04.2017 & through the  Tahsildar, Martur	Bag dispatched to 1710 FPO  on 09.04.17 Tahsidlar, Martur has  reported vide  Lr.No.RC/C/51/2017  dt.08.04.2017 that the family  members of the respondent  have refused to take the  notice and therefore pasted  on the house of the  respondent and the Gram  Panchayat, Konanki

45) Admittedly, Notices in Sl.Nos.1 to 6 were not served to the  petitioner and the consignment details were not found in the  website www.indiapost.gov.in. The final notice i.e. Notice dated  25.03.2017 was sent by registered post. But, the bag was  dispatched to 1710 FPO on 09.04.2017 and no details as to 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

29 

delivery of the notice were available in the website. Mere dispatch  of the bag without service on the addressee is not sufficient  service, since the language employed in B.S.O.15(18) specifically  states that, without giving the respondents a notice the show  cause, adverse order should not be passed. “Giving” means actual  handing over service i.e. actual service of notice or handing over  notice to the addressee. Therefore, in the absence of proof that the 

notices were served, it can safely be concluded that the mandatory  requirement under B.S.O.15(18) was not complied with by the  official respondents.  

46) Dissatisfied upon “giving notices” to the petitioner, the third  respondent – Joint Collector sent final notice dated 01.04.2017 by  registered post on 04.04.2017 through the Tahsildar, Martur. The  bag was dispatched to 1710 FPO on 09.04.2017. Again, no proof  is filed that the notice was delivered atleast by the postal  authorities, as per the information from the website. But the notice  sent through Tahsildar, Martur allegedly refused by the family  members of this petitioner and the Tahsildar intimated vide  Lr.No.RC/C/51/2017 dated 08.04.2017 stating that the family  members of the respondents have refused to receive the notice and  therefore, affixed on the house of the petitioner and Gram  Panchayat, Konanki. The final notice was sent in the name of  K. Krishna Kumar, but, whereas, the name of the petitioner is  Korrapati Kishore Kumar s/o Korrapati Anjaneyulu. Sending  notice in the name of K. Krishna Kumar and tendering the notice  to the family members of this petitioner is not proper service, as  K. Krishna Kumar is not the person to whom the patta was 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

30 

granted and proposed to be cancelled. In the absence of any  authorization from the petitioner to receive notice(s), the family  members are not entitled to receive the notice(s) and thereby  refusal of the notices sent to the addressee by name of K. Krishna  Kumar by the parents of the petitioner or family members is proper  refusal and that they are not supposed to receive the notices of  some other person who is unrelated to them. Therefore, refusal of  notice by family members of the petitioner/Korrapati Kishore  Kumar is proper and that cannot be held to be proper or sufficient  service. 

47) The Tahsildar intimated to the Joint Collector in Letter  Rc.No.51/17 dated 08.04.2017 that the notice was affixed to the  house of the petitioner and Gram Panchayat Office, Konanki. But,  affixture of notice to the house in the absence of any details where  it was affixed at the conspicuous place of the house and affixture  of notice at the Gram Panchayat Office are not authorized modes of  service under the Act and such notice if any, is to be affixed in  chavidi or in any other conspicuous place, or on the notice boards  of the Gram Panchayat Office, Primary Co-operative Agricultural  Credit Society or School, if any, in the village; or by beat of tom  tom in the village; or on the notice board of the office of the Mandal  Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the village; or on the  notice board of the office of the Mandal Praja Parishad in which the  village is situated. 

48) Therefore, affixture of notice on the house of this petitioner  parents and at the office of the gram panchayat is not a proper  service and such sending notice cannot be held to be in 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

31 

compliance of mandatory requirement under B.S.O.15(18). Hence,  I find that the notices as mandated under B.S.O.15(18) are not  served properly and thereby, cancellation of patta by the Joint  Collector without giving notice to the petitioner is a grave illegality.  On this ground also, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside. 

49) Yet, another contention of this petitioner is that, no  opportunity was afforded to the petitioner of personal hearing. In  fact, no personal hearing is contemplated in B.S.O.15(18). But,  the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that, no order prejudicial to any  person shall be passed unless such person has been given an  opportunity of making his representation. Nevertheless, the  principles of natural justice require that the person likely to be  affected should be given an opportunity of making a  representation. Any order passed without giving such opportunity  is liable to be set aside. Whether such opportunity includes personal hearing fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in  Travancore Rayon vs. Union of India⁶. It was held in that case  that, though the statutory provision does not require the revisional  authority to give a personal hearing to the aggrieved party, if in  appropriate cases where complex and difficult questions requiring  familiarity with technical problems are raised, personal hearing is  given, it would conduct to better administrative and more  satisfactory disposal of the grievance of citizens. 

50) In the present case, except calling for explanation in the  alleged show cause notice issued to the petitioner, no opportunity  of personal hearing was afforded before passing any order to  

⁶ AIR 1971 S.C 862

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

32 

enable the petitioner to explain as to his eligibility to claim patta  while in service. Therefore, disposal of the grievance of Respondent  No.8 by issuing notice and passing an adverse order against the  petitioner on the basis of such notice without complying the  mandatory requirement under B.S.O.15(18) is a grave illegality and  the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground. 

51) In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the order  impugned in the writ petition is contrary to the principles of  natural justice and that the impugned order was passed cancelling  the patta on a different ground that the patta was issued without  approval of assignment committee. But the reason mentioned in  the show cause notice for the proposed cancellation was that the  petitioner was not eligible for assignment, being a serving soldier.  Therefore, the reason mentioned in the show cause notice dated  26.08.2016 and impugned order dated 02.05.2017 for proposed  cancellation of patta are contrary to one another and based on a  different reason. Passing such an order is a grave illegality and the  petitioner was denuded from refuting such allegation submitting  his reply to the show cause notice. Apart from that, no notice was  issued to the petitioner in terms of B.S.O.15(18), thereby, the order  is vitiated by serious irregularities and contrary to the principles of  natural justice and law laid down by the Apex Court in the  judgments referred supra and the impugned order is liable to be  set-aside. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the  petitioner and against the respondents. 

52) One of the grounds raised by the official respondents initially  was that, the petitioner was not eligible for grant of patta, being a 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

33 

serving soldier as per the show cause notice dated 26.08.2016.  But, Respondent Nos.3 & 8 in the counter affidavit admitted that,  a serving soldier is also eligible for assignment of land. Even  otherwise, as per B.S.O.15(11)(2)(ii), all Jawans domiciled in  Andhra Pradesh and serving in the defence forces of India, will  after demobilisation be eligible for the assignment of lands in their  own villages or elsewhere. However, as per B.S.O.15(11)(2)(ii)(g),  applications for assignment of lands from the soldiers serving in  the army shall be considered in case their families volunteer to  take up cultivation on their behalf, subject to the condition that if  a jawan who has been allotted land is not demobilised in the  normal course but has been dismissed or court-martialled, the  land assigned to such person would revert to the Government. 

53) Similar question came up before High Court of Andhra  Pradesh in W.P.No.28209 of 2014 and the Court was of the  candid view that, as per Government Memo No.24022/2014- Assn(s)2/2017 dated 28.02.2017 read with B.S.O.15(11)(2)(ii),  serving soldiers are also entitled to claim assignment of land. 

54) Another contention of Respondent No.3 is that, the  application was not forwarded to the State through District Sainik  Board and thereby, the procedure has not been followed by the  petitioner and the assignment is liable to be cancelled. But, this  contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the Under  Secretary to the Government of India vide Letter No.25098/ 

XIII/AG/PS5(B)/961/S/D(AG-II) dated 15.06.1964 requested the  State Governments to consider favourably the applications from  Defence Services personnel for allotment of waste land in their 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

34 

State. The Letter dated 15.06.1964 is extracted hereunder for  better appreciation of the case: 

“I am directed to say that it has been brought to the  

notice of Government that the applications from  

serving personnel of the Defence Services for  

allotment of waste land for cultivation forwarded to  

the various State Governments, have had no results.  

In the light of the representations received by lower  

formations from certain serving personnel, I am to  

request that the authorities concerned may kindly  

be asked to consider favourably the applications  

from Defence Services personnel for allotment of  

waste eland in their State.” 

55) Vide Letter No.25098/XIII/AG/PS5(b)/1B05/D(AG-II) dated  25.04.1967, the Under Secretary to the Government of India  requested that expeditious action on applications from serving  personnel for allotment of Government waste land may be taken  and disputes arising from such allotment may kindly be settled as  expeditiously as possible. Letter dated 25.04.1967 is extracted  hereunder: 

“I am directed to refer to Ministry‟s letter No..25098/XIII /AG/  PS5(B)/961/S/D(AG-II) dated 15.06.1964 on the above subject,  and to say that it has been brought to the notice of this Ministry  that service personnel are facing great difficulty for the waste  lands allotted to them by the civil authorities due to the following  reasons:- 

(i) Allotment of land are not made on permanent basis 

(ii) Allotments of lands for home-stand and agriculture are  made in different places far away from each other which  

cause much inconvenience. 

(iii) Lands allotted are at times not free from trouble of the  original cultivators. 

I am to add that it has also been represented by the  

service personnel that early action on the requests made on the  subject is not taken, even on personal representations to the civil authorities concerned when soldiers are on leave. 

In view of the position stated above, I am to request that  

necessary steps may kindly be taken to remove the difficulties  mentioned above. It is also requested that expeditious action on  applications from serving personnel for allotment of Government  waste land may be taken and disputes arising from such  allotment may kindly be settled as expeditiously as possible.

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

35 

56) Apart from the above two letters, the Andhra Pradesh Board  of Revenue Standing Orders did not specify any procedure for  forwarding applications of serving soldiers for allotment of waste  land in their favour for cultivation by their family members. But,  executive instructions were issued from time to time for forwarding  the applications from District Sainik Board. Though Andhra  Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders are framed in terms of  Madras Act. 3 of 1895, the State Government issued instructions  from time to time, but the instructions have no statutory force to  compel any person to follow their instructions ignoring the  procedure prescribed under Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue  Standing Orders. These circulars will not supplement or supplant  to the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders. When  the Central Government addressed such letters, the State  Government cannot issue any circular(s) contrary to the  communication sent by the Central Government referred above. 

57) Similar question came up before High Court of Andhra  Pradesh in Maddu Tatha vs. Uttaravilli Nagamani⁷, where, the Court while deciding the validity of B.S.O.15, held that, the law  appears to be that all that is found in the form of Board of Revenue  Standing Orders may not have the force of law, but such of the  orders which are issued by virtue of the statutory powers of the  Board will have the force of law. The Board’s Standing Orders are  both statutory and non-statutory depending upon the fact whether  they are issued under any statute or whether they are issued in  the form of a Government Order by the Government in exercise of  

⁷ 1995 (1) ALD 484

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

36 

their executive power to issue instructions under Article 162 of the  Constitution of India. Standing Order No. 15 relating to disposal of  land found in Part II of the Board or Revenue Standing Orders are  admittedly issued by virtue of the statutory powers of the Board of  Revenue under the Regulations supra concerning the Revenue  administration, It is significant to note that the Board of Revenue  which was constituted under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)  Board of Revenue Regulation, 1803 which was in charge of the  general superintendence of the revenue from whatever source they  may arise were also entrusted with many functions including the  administration of justice and Courts. Admittedly, no other rule or  statute is pointed out to deal with the disposal of lands by the  Board of Revenue and now the Commissioner which is equivalent  to Standing Order No. 15 and therefore, it must be taken to be the  rule having force of law regarding disposal of lands. Therefore, the  law now settled appears to be that orders regarding assignment of  lands are to be disposed of in a quasi-judicial manner and even the  rules contained in the Standing Orders envisages disposal of  applications for assignment in the same manner. The Officer who  is competent to order the assignment is thus bound by Standing  Order No. 15 in regard to disposal of land by way of assignment or  otherwise. In sum and substance, the legality, propriety and the  correctness of disposal of land by way of assignment or otherwise  are to be decided with reference to Standing Order No. 15. There is  a clear prohibition to assign the poramboke tank-beds by the  assigning officer and if an assignment is contrary to this  prohibition, the same cannot be termed as legal. There will be 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

37 

failure of duty on the part of the officer assigning such a land  despite the prohibition. Therefore, even in the normal result of  illegal consequences such assignment would become void and  unenforceable. The consideration of the object of D-patta being the  assignment is forbidden by law and if permitted would defeat the  Standing Order No. 15 Para 4(i) and (ii) having force of law and  therefore, would not be lawful. It would be a flagrant violation of  and repugnant to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The  operative portion of Section 23 of the Contract Act makes such  transaction of which the object or consideration is unlawful, void.  In other words would be void since inception (void ab initio)  conferring no right on the plaintiff. Her claim of possession over  the suit property based on such void document could never thus  be lawful. 

58) Yet, Respondent Nos. 3 & 8 raised several other contentions  in their counter affidavits regarding issue of notification.  Respondent No.3 in Paragraph No.16 of the counter affidavit raised  an additional ground which is as follows: 

“It is true that the writ petitioner was assigned Ac.3-43 cents of land,  as shown in the petitioner’s affidavit. But, grant of the said DK patta  contains the following material irregularities: 

(vi) The A1 notice, inviting the objections against the proposed  grant was not published, as required under BSO 15-B (6). 

(vii) That the fact of application was not published by beat of tom  tom in the village, as required under 15-B (6). 

(viii) That the application was not sent to the VRO, for complying  with the above 2 stages of work, as required under BSO 15(6)  

and also there is no report of the VRO in the prescribed format.  

“A Memorandum”, as required under BSO 15-B(6), which  

should have been attested by the literate residents of the  

village. 

(ix) The Govt. have also, vide Memo No.44577/Assn.POT(2)/2007- 1 dated 24.09.2007, given under BSO 15-B(6), that the  

procedure of assignment of Govt. land, as stipulated under  

BSO 15-B should be followed strictly. 

(x) Also, it was not placed in the Assignment Revenue Committee”

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

38 

59) Whereas, Respondent No.8 in Paragraph No.6 raised a  different ground about procedural non-compliance, which reads as  follows: 

(i) The A1 notice, inviting the objections against the proposed grant was not  published. 

(ii) The application of the writ petitioner was not published by beat of tom tom  in the village 

(iii) That the application was not sent to the VRO, for complying with the above  2 stages of work 

(iv) There is no report of the VRO in the prescribed format. “A Memorandum”,  which should have been attested by the literate residents of the village;  as required under BSO 15-B(6); 

(v) The application was not placed before the Assignment Review Committee.  

60) Finally, in Paragraph No.23 of the counter affidavit filed by  Respondent No.3, specific reasons are given for cancellation of  patta under B.S.O.15(18) and they are as follows: 

(i) That the impugned order was passed on the grounds mentioned in para 3  above, as noted in para 7 of the impugned order, but not on the ground  of ineligibility of the serving soldiers for assignment, as alleged in the  Writ Petition. 

(ii) That the BSO 15(11)(2)(ii)(g) relied upon by the petitioner, though not taken  into consideration. as it did not come to light, in the Show Cause Notice  Dt: 26.08.2016, it was taken into account in para 5 of the impugned  order, even without representation from the petitioner. 

(iii) That grant of assignment, without the approval of the Assignment  Committee is a material irregularity, attracting the provisions of BSO  15(18) * (1) and this is such a case, since the Tahsildar, Martur has  reported, vide his Lr. .RC/A/129/2014 Dt: 18.06.2016, that the  assignment was made, without the approval of the Assignment  Committee. Also, there are other material irregularities enlisted in the  grant of patta, as submitted below. 

(iv) That when it is required that the assignment should be made, after  approval of the Assignment Committee, if the Tahsildar has made  assignment, without the approval of such Committee, then certainly,  the Tahsildar has exceeded his jurisdiction and in such a case the  provisions of BSO 15(18) * (1) attracts to such cases. This case is such  a one, since the there was no approval of the Assignment Committee  and therefore BSO 15(18) (1) attracted to this case. The petitioner has  in para 14 of the petitioner’s affidavit contended that it was placed in  the Assignment Committee and forwarded by the Chairman of the said  Committee, i.c., the then MLA with signature, whereas the Tahsildar’s  report Dt: 18.06.2016 reveals that it has no approval of the Assignment  Committee. Hence, the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.  However, it is submitted to the Hon’ble High Court, mere forwarding of  the application of the petitioner by the Chairman of the Assignment  Committee to the Tahsildar, cannot be said to be the approval of the  Assignment Committee. The Assignment Committee consists of, not  only the MLA, but also other members too, and such a Committee has  to sit and pass a decision, approving or disapproving the proposal. If  the petitioner has such a proof of placing in the Committee, he may  produce the same and in such a case of evidence, one of the grounds of  the impugned order that it has no approval of the Committee, looses  ground.

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

39 

(v) Even as per BSO (15) (11)(2)(2)(ii)(g), applications for assignment of lands  from the soldiers serving the army should be considered, in case their  families volunteer to take up cultivation, on their behalf, subject to the  condition, if a jawan who has been allotted land is not de- mobilized in  the normal course, but has been dismissed or court martialled, the  land assigned to such person would revert to the Govt., To examine as  to whether such conditions stipulated in the DK patta granted, the  connected DK file was reported by the Tahsildar to be not available.  But, now the Tahsildar, Martur has reported that the connected file is  available and that it is processed in the Assignments – General file  containing NO. RC/C/678/07 and on verification of the same, the  material irregularities shown in para 23(iii) above are noticed. 

(vi) That in the above circumstances, the then Joint Collector has passed the  impugned order, based on the material available then, on record. 

61) Hence, it is clear from the admission made by Respondent  No.3 in the counter affidavit that, cancellation of patta was not on  the ground of ineligibility, but on different grounds. The grounds  mentioned in the show cause notice dated 26.08.2016 for proposed  cancellation of D.K. patta of serving soldier are as follows: 

Grounds for cancelation of D.K Patta of Serving Soldier : 

(i) The individual was was assigned Ac.3.43 cent of Govt. land of Ac.0.85 in  465/1 Ac: 0.85 cents in 0.465/2 Ac:1.00 cents in .465/3, Ac: 0.73 cents in  SyN0.465/5 of Konanki Martur Mandalvide serial no.1995, 0.K1/120F and  file .678/2007 dated: |6/2011, whereas, as per G.O.Ms.No.743, dated:  30.04.1963, the application should be made within 12 months from the date  of discharge or in the case of death on active service, from the date of  intimation to the family of the deceased and whereas the application by the  individual for assignment is contradictory to the said provision. This shows  that the individual had no even eligibity to apply for grant of the land, as on  the date of the application for the same. 

(ii) The Director, Sainik Welfare has addressed a letter District Collector  Prakasam District, Ongole, vide letter 4870/E8W/2007 dated: 25.06.2007,  which also reiterate that the application, for assignment of land by Ex-Service  Men, should be submitted within 12 months from the date of discharge and  the said letter also asked the District Collectors not to entertain the  applications for assignment of land coming directly from the serving soldiers  or Commanding Officers, on behalf of serving soldiers, whereas the  application of K.Kishore Kumar was entertained and forwarded by the District  Collector, vide R/E2/71/2009 Dt: 24.04.2010, to the Tahsildar, Martur,  contrary to the directions of the Director. 

(iii) Sri Korrapati kishore Kumar who had got assigned land of Acs 3.43 under  Konanki Village of Martur Mandal had forwarded his applications through his  unit C / o 56 APO, dated: 26.12.2009, he himself admitted that he was  serving in the army since 1 ^ (st) November 2009 and as such the grant of DK  patta for the land in question to him is irregular. 

6. Sri K. Kishore Kumar S / o Anjaneyulu, r/o Konanki Village of Martur  Mandal is, therefore, hereby required to show cause, within 15 days, from the  date of receipt of this notice, as to why the DK Patta granted, for the lands in  question, should not be cancelled, on the grounds mentioned in para 5 above.  If he wants to submit his case in person or through Advocate, they may do so,  on 17.09.2016 at 11.00 A.M, Collector’s Office, Ongole. If he fails to submit his  explanation within the stipulated time or failed to avail of the personal  opportunity of representation given, it will be presumed that there is nothing to  offer and orders deemed fit will be passed, based on the material available on  record.

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

40 

62) It appears from the grounds in the show cause notice that  the assignment is contrary to the provisions of Board Standing  Orders. The first ground is based on ineligibility i.e. the application  should be made within 12 months from the date of discharge on  active service. The second ground is that, application for  assignment of land by Ex-Service Men, should be submitted within  12 months from the date of discharge. But, in the present case, the  petitioner submitted application within 12 months from the date of  joining, but not from the date of discharge. The third ground is  that, the petitioner had forwarded his application through his unit  C/o 56 APO, dated: 26.12.2009, while serving in the army since  01.11.2009 for grant of DK patta, which is allegedly irregular. As  the grounds shown in the show cause notice are entirely different from the grounds mentioned for cancellation in the impugned  order, as admitted by Respondent No.3 in Paragraph No.23 of the  counter affidavit, therefore, it is clear that the grounds mentioned  in the show cause notice are different from the grounds based in  the order impugned in the writ petition, and such order is illegal  and arbitrary, in view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme  Court in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Toyo  Engineering Limited⁸. 

63) Though the respondents raised several contentions in the  counter affidavit to disqualify the petitioner to obtain patta being a  serving soldier in the Army, it is nothing but an improvement and  that, Respondent Nos. 3 & 8 cannot supplement or supplant  

⁸ (2006) 7 SCC 592

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

41 

additional grounds or raise a ground which is different from the  ground mentioned in the show cause notice. It is a settled  proposition of law that, pleading cannot substitute a reason in an  administrative order and this view is fortified by the judgment of  the Constitutional Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief  Election Commissioner, New Delhi⁹, wherein it was held that  when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain  grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned  therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape  of an affidavit or otherwise; otherwise, an order bad in the  beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a  challenge, gets validated by additional reasons/grounds later  brought in. In the said judgment, the Constitution Bench referred  to earlier judgment in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs.  Gordhandas Bhanji¹⁰, wherein the Apex Court observed as  follows: 

“Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory  

authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations  

subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he  

meant or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do.  

As such orders are meant to have public effect and are intended  

to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are  

addressed’ they must be construed objectively with reference to  

the language used in the order itself.” 

64) In Dipak Babari and another vs. State of Gujarat and  others¹¹, the Apex Court held as follows: 

“That apart, it has to be examined whether the  

Government had given sufficient reasons for the  

order it passed, at the time of passing such order.  

The Government must defend its action on the  

basis of the order that it has passed, and it cannot  

improve its stand by filing subsequent affidavits as  

⁹ (1978) 1 SCC 405 

¹⁰ AIR 1952 SC 16 

¹¹ (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 502

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

42 

laid down by this Court long back in  

Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji¹² 

in the following words: 

….. public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a  

statutory authority cannot be construed in the  

light of explanations subsequently given by the  

officer making the order of what he meant, or of  

what was in his mind, or what he intended to do.  

Public orders made by public authorities are meant  

to have public effect and are intended to affect the  

actings and conduct of those to whom they are  

addressed and must be construed objectively with  

reference to the language used in the order itself. 

65) In view of the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the  judgments referred supra, the grounds supplemented or  substituted for the grounds in the show cause notice which were  for the first time mentioned in the counter affidavit or in the order  cannot be looked into by this Court and such attempt to  supplement the grounds is contrary to the law, as declared by the  Hon‟ble Apex Court in the judgments referred supra. Hence, the  grounds mentioned in the order impugned in the writ petition and  the additional grounds raised in the counter affidavit by  Respondent Nos. 3 & 8 can never form a basis for cancellation and  to uphold the order passed by Respondent No.3/Joint Collector. 

66) In view of my foregoing discussion, it is clear that, obviously  for reasons best known to the revenue department, more  particularly, Respondent No.3 issued notice(s) on the ground that  the petitioner is ineligible for grant of patta. But, after alleged  enquiry, even without giving notice to the petitioner, the third  respondent passed orders on different grounds which is  impermissible under law and improved the case raising several  additional grounds in the counter affidavit, which is nothing but  

bad under law. The way in which the revenue department passed  

¹² AIR 1952 SC 16

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

43 

the order impugned in the present writ petition and raised grounds  gives scope for drawing an inference about malafides on the part of  the third respondent. The soldiers in Army are working at a distant  place from their families sometimes alone, without any support  either morally or physically, sometimes those places are not  accessible to general public with a fear of insecurity and threat to  the family members. That is reason for providing the policy to  assign land to serving soldiers to create a secured life atleast in  future while in service or after discharge from the Army service.  But, to frustrate such security in future, the third respondent  acted in such manner and exhibited certain malafides by the show  cause notice, impugned order and counter affidavit, perhaps at the  instance of Respondent No.8 who is competing with the petitioner  for allotment of land being an ex-serviceman. If, for any reason, the  request of Respondent No.8 was not attended by the revenue  authorities, his application can be considered and allotment can be  made, subject to his eligibility. But, at the instance of Respondent No.8, got issued legal notice dated 12.07.2014 through  Mr. Mahaboob Basha, High Court Advocate. The respondents are  not expected/supposed to take such decision to entertain suo motu revision after lapse of five years, though no time limit is prescribed,  but, it appears that it is reasonable. 

67) The third respondent/Joint Collector is a Public Officer  discharging his public duties. Passing such orders inventing  ground(s) other than the grounds mentioned in the show cause  notice and raising several other contentions in the writ petition  other than the ground(s) mentioned in the show cause notice and 

MSM,J 

WP.No.19079 of 2017 

44 

the order is depreciable and such callous approach is not expected  from an Indian Administrative Service Officer. Hence, I find that  the order impugned in the writ petition is illegal and arbitrary in  view of the reasons mentioned above and the same is liable to be  set-aside. 

68) In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the order  passed by the third respondent/Joint Collector in D.Dis.No.E5/ 1861/2016 dated 02.05.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and  consequently set-aside the same. No costs. 

69) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,  shall stand closed. 

_________________________________________ 

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 

Date:23.03.2022 

Note: LR copy to be marked 

b/o 

SP