IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24001 of 1999 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 24001 of 1999 Order: The proceedings impugned in this writ petition is the order of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Dhone, dated 03.12.1996, whereby the D-Form patta granted to the petitioner earlier was cancelled and the land was directed to be resumed on the ground that the petitioner had violated the conditions of the grant. The said proceedings dated 03.12.1996 was passed pursuant to a show cause notice dated 15.10.1994 issued to the petitioner, whereunder the petitioner was informed that, while an extent of Ac.3-70 cents of land was allotted to him on 10.03.1967, on the representation given by the Nayee Brahmana Seva Sangham of Dhone village, the Government has decided to assign an extent of Ac.3-16 cents for the beneﬁt of the said Sangham for allotment of house sites. The show cause notice refers to condition No.17 of the D-Form Patta whereunder the Government has the right to take the land without payment of compensation if the land is required for the purpose of public utility services. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the assignment in his favour should not be cancelled and the land not be resumed. Assailing the said notice, the petitioner ﬁled W.P. No. 19598 of 1994, and this Court, by order dated 03.10.1996, observed that the show cause notice did not state as to whether any conditions in the D-Form patta had been violated by the petitioner. However, since it is only a show cause notice, the petitioner was permitted to submit his explanation to the said notice within one month, and on ﬁling of such explanation, the 3rd respondent was directed to consider the same on its own merits and dispose it of in accordance with law and, till ﬁnal orders were passed, the petitioner was directed not to be dispossessed from the lands. Curiously, while the show cause notice dated 15.10.1994 refers to condition No.17 of the D-Form Patta, the ﬁnal order dated 03.12.1996 refers to certain instances, which do not form part of the show cause notice. It is stated in the impugned order that, though the land assigned under the D- Form patta is heritable but not transferable, the petitioner had alienated Ac.1-74 cents of land to his brother, namely Ramaiah through a gift deed dated 29.01.1984, that in accordance with Section 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, assigned land should not be transferred or alienated to any other person and that no right or title in such assigned lands shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. It was alleged that the petitioner had violated Condition No.1 of the D-Form Patta. It is further stated that, in accordance with Condition No.2 of the D-Form Patta, the assigned lands should have been brought under cultivation within three years from the date of the grant, that an extent of Ac.1-00 of land in the portion alienated to his brother was under cultivation and the rest of the land was kept as waste on which green grass had come up, that the assignee had not made any attempt to reclaim the waste portion and bring it under cultivation and had thus violated Condition No.2 of the D-Form patta. Condition No.17 of D-Form Patta was also referred to hold that the said land is also required for the public purpose for providing house sites to weaker sections. It is also stated that the petitioner is a rich landlord and he is in possession of a total extent of Ac.11-37 cents of land and that he is not entitled to the assigned land since he holds such a large extent. The very purpose of issuing a notice to show cause is to give the person concerned an opportunity to meet the allegations in the show cause notice. The requirement of putting a person, whose vested rights are adversely aﬀected, on notice and giving him an opportunity of being heard is a part of the basic rules of natural justice. While the respondents may have been justiﬁed in acting pursuant to the show cause notice for the violations referred to therein (in the case on hand Condition No.17), the impugned order dated 03.12.1996 has, in eﬀect, sought to cancel the assignment on several other grounds which are not reﬂected in the show cause notice. If the respondents intended to cancel the assignment on the grounds mentioned in the ﬁnal order they ought to have ﬁrst put the petitioner on notice regarding these allegations, should have given him an opportunity to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for violating these conditions, and, on the basis of the representation submitted by him, to have passed a ﬁnal order. Since, admittedly, the various violations mentioned in the ﬁnal order dated 03.12.1996 do not form part of the show cause notice and as the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to meet these allegations, the impugned order must necessarily be quashed. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would, however, contend that the land had already been resumed and has been allotted as house sites to weaker sections. He would further contend that the petitioner has an eﬀective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 4-A of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. On the question of alternative remedy, Sri C.V. Bhaskara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had ﬁled O.S. No. 1 of 1997 against the impugned order herein and, since the Court below had refused to grant injunction in I.A. No.3 of 1997 in O.S. No. 1 of 1997 on the ground that he did not have jurisdiction to pass such an order, the petitioner had preferred C.M.A. No. 12 of 1997 before the Court of I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, which was also dismissed, that thereafter he had ﬁled C.R.P. No. 4991 of 1999, and that this Court, by order dated 19.06.2000, had held that the observations made by the District Judge would be conﬁned only for disposal of the interlocutory application and would have no bearing upon the other remedies to be availed by the petitioner, provided he withdrew the suit in O.S. No. 1 of 1997. Learned counsel would further submit that, pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioner ﬁled I.A.No.582 of 2000 in O.S. No. 1 of 1997, withdrawing the suit in O.S. No.1 of 1997. Learned counsel would submit that since this period, during which the petitioner had pursued his remedy before the Civil Court, had resulted in expiry of the time prescribed for preferring an appeal under Section 4-A of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the petitioner could not have preferred the appeal and his remedy was only by way of a writ petition before this Court. While this submission of the learned counsel has considerable force, it cannot be also lost sight of that the mere existence of an alternative remedy would not bar exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is but a matter to be taken into consideration by this Court in deciding whether or not to exercise its discretion to entertain the writ petition. Among the well accepted grounds on which alternative remedy would not preclude this Court from exercising its discretion to entertain the writ petition are violation of the rules of natural justice, and since the impugned order is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice, mere existence of an alternative remedy of appeal would not bar this Court from exercising its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition. With regards the contention that the land had already been resumed, and had been assigned as house sites to weaker sections, it must be borne in mind that in case the petitioner was to succeed and it were to be held that cancellation of assignment and resumption of land was illegal, he would be entitled for exgratia/compensation. The mere fact that the land has already been resumed would, therefore, not render the order, passed in violation of principles of natural justice, legal and valid. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The impugned order dated 03.12.1996 is, accordingly, set aside. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Dhone, shall either pass an order strictly in accordance with the show cause notice dated 15.10.1994, after considering the petitioner’s objections thereto, or in case he intends to proceed with the cancellation of assignment for violation of any other conditions, he may do so, after putting the petitioner on notice and giving him an opportunity of being heard. Since the subsequent act of resumption and assigning the resumed land as house sites to weaker sections has resulted in the petitioner not being able to be put back in possession, even though the impugned order is set aside, it is but appropriate that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Dhone, takes an appropriate decision, as mentioned herein above, and after complying with the requirements of natural justice, takes action in accordance with law, as afore mentioned, at the earliest, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Dhone, shall pass an order afresh within the aforesaid period of four months. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 26.08.2008 Nsr