IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 12080 of 2001 Between: Mekala Rajamani, W/o. Poshanna, R/o. Pachala Nadukuda Village, Vailpoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. presently R/o. Armoor Village, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nizamabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Armoor, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide No.B2/5256/95, dt. 19.3.2001 and QUASH the same by issuing a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of CERTIORARI by duly declaring the action of the respondents i.e., the action of the respondents 2 and 3 i.e. proceedings initiated by them i.e. issuance of show-cause notice as well as cancellation of patta certificate granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner alleging the contravention of one of the patta conditions on erroneous grounds and on mistake of certain facts is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and also gross violation of principles of law laid down while deciding the assignment cases which came up for adjudication before this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a widow. Her husband one Mekala Poshanna @ Sainna was in out-lawed organization and participated in extremist activities and later on he joined in the main stream of the society by surrendering before the police. Under the relief and rehabilitation measures taken by the Government for the benefit of surrendered extremists, her husband name was considered and was assigned a house site patta i.e., plot No.3 at Armoor I.B.Colony in Sy.No.401/66 measuring 35 F x 26 F vide patta certificate Proceedings No.B2/5256/95, dated 31-05-1996. Soon after granting the patta certificate, the possession of the land was handed over to her husband. Her husband was in possession and enjoyment of the property and died in an encounter. Later on, she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the assigned plot in question. Thereafter, without giving any notice, the impugned proceedings No.B2/5256/95, dated 19-05-2001 have been issued canceling the assignment made in favour of her husband. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the husband of the petitioner was assigned house plot No.3 in Sy.No.401/66 admeasuring 35 x 26 situated at Armoor village and Mandal by Mandal Revenue Officer vide proceedings No.B2/5256/95, dated 31- 05-1996 as per relief and rehabilitation taken by the District Collector, Nizamabad. As per condition No.3 of the assignment, the assignee has to built thatched/tiled house within six months from the date of issue of patta certificate. The assignee has not built any construction even after a period of four years and the assignee died in encounter with the police in the year 1999. After the death of the assignee, neither his wife nor his parents approached the respondents for mutation of the names in the Revenue Records. Therefore, after giving a notice to the petitioner the assignment was cancelled and after the cancellation of the said assignment in favour of the husband of the petitioner, the said site was allotted in favour of a journalist through the proceedings in 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s husband was assigned the patta and pursuant to the said assignment he was delivered the physical possession and accordingly he was in possession. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner was died in an encounter in 1999 and the petitioner continued to be in possession of the same. But without issuing any notice, the said assignment was cancelled under the impugned proceedings and she has been in possession of the land as on today. Subsequent to that, due to the calamity taken in the life of the petitioner, she could not raise any structures in the land. It is also stated that the contention of the respondents that consequent to the cancellation of the patta the possession was taken over by the respondents and re-allotted the site in question in favour of Sri Vijay Prathap Chawla, a local press reporter is not correct and the petitioner was very much in possession of the land. In support of his contention he also filed material paper which is a representation dated 18-10-2001 stated to have been filed by Sri Vijay Prathap Chawla, who is alleged assignee of the land subsequent to cancellation of the patta in the name of the husband of the petitioner, which says that he was assigned patta on 03-06-2001 but because of pendency of the matter before the High Court, they have returned the said patta to the authorities. This fact is not disputed by producing any document or record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been issued without any notice to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that though the steps have been taken to serve the notice on the petitioner, the whereabouts of the petitioner or the parents of her deceased husband, were not known to the respondents, and therefore, the notices were not served. But in the counter-affidavit it is mentioned that the petitioner was residing in Bheemgal and consequently a notice was sent to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bheemgal in turn he returned to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad, stating that the petitioner is not residing. Once it is stated that the petitioner was residing in Bheemgal there is no justification on the part of the respondent to not to serve the notices on the petitioner. Therefore, once they admit that the petitioner as on the date of cancellation or issuance of notice was residing at Bheemgal, without serving the notices on her the cancellation proceedings issued by the respondents is illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. More over, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to the cancellation of the assignment made in favour of the petitioner, under the impugned order, the site in question was allotted in favour of one Vijay Prathap Chawla, a local press reporter, who returned the said assignment proceedings on the ground that the matter is pending before the High Court. It is also asserted that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the house site in question which is categorically mentioned in the reply affidavit filed by her which is not controverted by the respondents by producing any relevant record. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order. However, this order does not preclude the authorities from passing appropriate orders after issuing notice and following due process of law. No costs. __________________ 26th November, 2008 SKM