time of assignment of lands, the original petitioner has not owned any lands. Further, he drew the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 02.05.2002, from which, it is clear that the original petitioner is in possession of the lands and cultivating the lands assigned to him. That apart the original petitioner has also submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause notice dated 20.09.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereas the 2nd respondent without considering the facts, erroneously has passed the proceedings dated 22.10.2008 cancelling the assignment granted in favour of the original petitioner. He further argued that the original petitioner is cultivating crops in the assigned land and he has not suppressed any facts, more so, he is not in possession of any land at the time of assignment. He also submitted that apparently, without any justification and without even considering the grounds raised in the appeal, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order, which is unsustainable. Mere rejection and confirming the order of the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent will lead to dispossession of the petitioners from the assigned land. Hence, he prays before this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 25.02.2011 passed by the 1st respondent and thereby allowing the instant writ petition.
