THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.25879 of 2011 Dated 15th September, 2011 Between: N.Narayana Raju and others …Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD (PW LA.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Mavidi Rama Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP for Irrigation & CAD The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice bearing No.AB/MC3/893/M, dated 20.07.2011, issued by respondent No.4, wherein he has purportedly cancelled the lease of lands granted by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioners. The background facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under. The petitioners were granted lease of vacant irrigation lands admeasuring Acs.20.00 each in Survey Nos.4 and 5 of Regullanka, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, for a period of 30 years, for cultivation of bio-diesel plantation vide G.O.Rt.No.1792, Irrigation & CAD (IRR.I.2) Department, dated 22.12.2004. Thereupon, respondent No.4 has entered into agreements with the petitioners on 05.02.2005 after collecting lease amounts and deposits form the petitioners. After handing over physical possession of the lands, respondent No.1 has issued G.O.Rt.No.165, Irrigation & CAD (PW.L.A.I) Department, dated 26.02.2005, cancelling G.O.Rt.No.1792, dated 22.12.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the said cancellation, the petitioners filed W.P.No.5171 of 2005 and batch. Initially, this court has suspended G.O.Rt.No.165, dated 26.02.2005, and disposed of the writ petitions finally by order, dated 24.09.2007, wherein a specific finding was rendered that before cancelling the leases, the petitioners were not put on notice and therefore, the impugned order of cancellation is not sustainable. On that premise, this Court has directed the respondents to put the petitioners on notice and consider the explanation, if any, filed by them before proceeding further. The respondents having kept quiet for nearly four years, have come out with the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.4, wherein it was observed that as the lands allotted to the petitioners are adjacent to Sir Arthur Cotton Barrage, which was declared as prohibited area by the Government and that it was not feasible to allot the land to any person or institution for self-advantage, the earlier order issued in G.O.Rt.No.165, dated 26.02.2005, cancelling the leases was held good. Respondent No.4 has returned the deposits and the annual lease fee paid by the petitioners. At the hearing, Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 is wholly without any jurisdiction, apart from the same being in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and the final order of this Court in W.P.No.5171 of 2005 and batch. The learned counsel further submitted that not only that the petitioners are denied an opportunity of submitting their explanation as directed by this Court, but also respondent No.4 has far too exceeded his power in purporting to cancel the leases granted in pursuance of the order issued by respondent No.1. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation & CAD sought to sustain the impugned order of respondent No.4. In the first place, it requires to be noticed that the approach of respondent No.4 betrays his lack of understanding of the order, dated 24.09.2007, of this Court in W.P.No.5171 of 2005 and batch. Even though this Court has not formally set aside G.O.Rt.No.165, dated 26.02.2005, it has rendered a clear finding that the said G.O., is not sustainable. Once the said G.O., is held to be unsustainable, the automatic consequence is that G.O.Rt.No.1792, dated 22.12.2004, in pursuance of which leases have been granted in favour of the petitioners stands revived. Unless respondent No.1, which issued the said G.O., sets aside the same, respondent No.4 has neither power nor authority to hold that G.O.Rt.No.165, dated 26.02.2005, holds good. Another aspect, which requires mention here is that this Court has given a specific direction that the competent authority shall put the petitioners on notice and consider the explanation, if any, filed by them before proceeding further. Even though respondent No.4, who meddled with the issue has power or authority, even while exercising such power, he has failed to follow the direction of this Court. In the impugned proceedings, respondent No.4 has specifically taken note of the direction contained in the order of this Court in the writ petitions referred to above and stated that he was hereby issuing notice. But, instead of calling for explanation from the petitioners, he has purportedly upheld G.O.Rt.No.165, dated 26.02.2005. Respondent No.4 has failed to distinguish between a notice and an order. While a notice affords an opportunity to the person who is likely to be affected by the eventual decision, the rights of the parties are adjudicated by an order. Respondent No.4 failed to keep this clear distinction in view and while purporting to issue a notice, he has issued an order by the same proceedings. This action of respondent No.4 is clearly unsustainable in law. For all the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceedings are set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue a notice to the petitioners inviting their objections in the event it proposes to cancel the leases earlier granted in their favour. On the expiry of the time stipulated for filing such objections, respondent No.1 shall consider the same, if any, filed and pass an appropriate order as to whether to continue the leases granted to the petitioners or cancel the same. The decision, if any, taken thereon shall be communicated to the petitioners thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31905 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th September, 2011 VGB