IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4630 of 2009 Between: Karanapu Ademma, D/o. Late Venkata Suri, R/o. Lopenta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd. Rep by its District Collector, Ex. Driver, Srikakulam 2 The Deputy Executive Engineer (H), The A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Ranasthalam, Srikakulam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Leveru Mandal, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SRI K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of a mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 04.02.2009 of the District Collector and Executive Director of respondent No.1-Corporation. The petitioner is one of the 318 beneficiaries in whose favour houses were sanctioned under Indiramma Phase III in respect of Lopenta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District. By the impugned proceedings, the District Collector and Executive Director of respondent No.1-Corporation cancelled allotment of house in favour of the petitioner and another person besides directing cancellation of house site pattas. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is specifically averred that the house site in occupation of the petitioner is a private land, which is in her occupation for the last 50 years, and the respondents have no power or authority to cancel the house site patta. The petitioner also averred that no prior notice was issued to her before cancelling the allotment of house and house site patta. No counter-affidavit is filed by any of the respondents. Heard Sri A.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. A perusal of the impugned proceedings does not reveal that the petitioner was given a prior notice and opportunity of hearing before cancelling allotment. A reference to representation dated 04.02.2009 said to have been filed by Sri N.Pydeyyareddy and 60 others was made in the impugned proceedings. However, neither its contents nor the reason for cancelling allotment of house in favour of the petitioner have been mentioned except stating that there was a title dispute. The petitioner specifically averred that she filed O.S.No.51 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for injunction when one group in the village sought to interfere with her right to enjoy the property. In the face of this dispute, the District Collector and Executive Director is not excepted to act unilaterally on the purported representation of one group and cancel the allotment of house made in favour of the petitioner. Unless the Collector found the objection raised by N.Pydeyyareddy and others as legally sustainable and there were strong reasons for cancelling the allotment, he ought not to have cancelled the allotment of house. Even if he found justifiable reasons for such cancellation, the petitioner is entitled to a prior notice before cancelling the allotment. The action of cancellation of allotment of house in favour of the petitioner is done in a hasty and arbitrary manner and in violation of principles of natural justice. As regards cancellation of house site patta, even on the respondents’ own showing there is a title dispute. There is no finding that the house site belongs to the Government. Therefore, cancellation of house site patta is beyond the power of the District Collector acting as Executive Director of respondent No.1- Corporation. Even assuming that he has the necessary competence to cancel the house site patta, such action cannot be resorted to without putting the petitioner on notice. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order is quashed. Respondent No.1 is given liberty to initiate fresh action by giving the petitioner a notice and opportunity of hearing before passing any order adverse to her interest. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, W.P.M.P.No.6079 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.06.2009 va