IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SMT. T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2010 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01.05.2009 in WP No. 22282 of 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda and two others ..... APPELLANTS AND Singaramu Vinoda and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (per T.Meena Kumari, the Acting Chief Justice.) The present Writ Appeal seeks to assail the order dated 1.5.2009 passed by a learned single Judge in WP No. 22282 of 2009 dismissing the same with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/-. The case of the writ petitioner - first respondent herein is that one Chakali Narasamma, who was allotted plot No.15 to an extent of 210 Sq. yards in Anantharam village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District, put her in possession and she applied for permission to construct a house, which was rejected by the Sarpanch on the ground that the patta was granted in favour of Chakali Narasamma and the first respondent has no right over the same. Subsequently, the patta stood transferred in the name of the first respondent herein on her application and thereafter the Sarpanch granted permission for construction of a house and the Gram Pachayath also granted domestic water connection. The third respondent herein, by virtue of identical name, complained to the authorities claiming plot No. 15 for herself and there was also interference with the possession of the first respondent herein. On enquiry by the first respondent, she came to know about the memo dated 9.10.2007 cancelling her possession certificate and informing her that Chakali Narsamma alone has the right and further informed that she shall not cause any hindrance to Chakali Narasama and if any such hindrance is caused, criminal action would be taken against the first respondent. It is the case of the first respondent that the said memo, which is impugned in the writ petition was issued without notice to her or affording an opportunity of being heard and as such the said memo is violative of due process of law. The additional counter-affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Bhongir mandal admits passing the impugned memo without notice to the affected parties. The learned single Judge held that since the impugned memo was issued without notice to the affected parties, muchless the first respondent herein, allowed the writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the official respondents jointly and severally, leaving it open to the first appellant – District Collector to initiate enquiry against the person or persons responsible for passing the impugned memo without issuing notice to the first respondent herein. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filed by the official respondents inter alia contending that the impugned memo was issued in good faith and not with any ulterior motive and hence, the imposition of costs of Rs.5000/- is unjust. Admittedly, as can be seen from the additional counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Bhongir Mandal, no notice was issued to the first respondent – writ petitioner before canceling the possession certificate in respect of house plot. Thus, the unilateral action on the part of the second respondent is violative of principles of natural justice and, hence, the observation of the learned Single Judge that if the first respondent was ineligible for assignment of house plot, as sought to be contended in the counter affidavit, inasmuch as her husband Mr.Venkatesham was already assigned and allotted plot No.17, then it would be incumbent for the authorities to have verified the fact, is perfectly justified. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that imposition of costs on the official respondents is unwarranted. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside imposition of costs alone confirming the rest of the order impugned. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.Meena Kumari, ACJ _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah February 17, 2010 MAS.