IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 730 of 1999 Between: 1 B.Pocham Reddy (died) S/o Malla Reddy R/o Lalgadi , Malakpet Village RR District. 2 B. Bharathi W/o. Srinivasa Reddy R/o Lalgadi , Malakpet Village RR District. Petitioner No.2 brought on record as LR of deceased petitioner as per c.o. dt.6-6-05 in WPMP 33099/04 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Govt of A.P rep by District Revenue Officer Revenue Department , Khairtabad , Hyderabad 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Shameerpet , RR 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 to call for the records in proceedings No. E5/8025/98 , dated 9-11-98 on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent by issuing a writ or order of Certiorari and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No.730 of 1999 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Ranga Reddy District dated 9.11.1998, whereby the assignment made in favour of the petitioner of an extent of Ac.10-00 in Sy.No.542 of Kolthur village, Shamirpet Mandal was cancelled due to non observation of the conditions of assignment and for violation of the rules, the present writ petition is filed. Since the sole petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition, his legal representative and daughter, the 2 nd respondent, was brought on record by order in W.P.M.P.33099 of 2004 dated 6.6.2005. The petitioner, a freedom ﬁghter, applied for land under the freedom ﬁghters’ quota. The 2nd respondent assigned Ac.10-00 of dry land in Sy.No.542/1 of Kolthur village, Shameerpet Mandal with the prior permission of the District Collector vide proceedings dated 28.1.1989. Condition No.2 of the said assignment required the land assigned to be brought under cultivation within 3 years from the date of assignment and condition 15 enabled the Government to resume the land without compensation for breach of any of the conditions of assignment. The petitioner claims to have taken possession of the land and to have planted Seethaphal trees therein. The petitioner claims not to have developed the said land as he did not have the required ﬁnance to take up development works such as digging the bore well, erecting a pump set etc. It is his case, that, since he had grown Seethaphal trees, it amounted to horticulture and that he had not violated condition No.2 of the assignment. A show cause notice was issued by the 1st respondent on 6.9.1998 informing the petitioner that the 2nd respondent had submitted a proposal for cancellation of the patta issued in his favour on the ground that he has was never in possession of the land and that he had not cultivated the same. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto, he appeared in person before the authority and was heard. Thereafter the impugned proceedings came to be passed. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 6.9.1998 shows that the said notice was issued based on the proposal received from the M.R.O. The report of the M.R.O. dated 16.9.1998 seems to have stated that the petitioner had not cultivated the land and that the pahanies showed that there was no cultivation. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner was not furnished a copy of the said report of the M.R.O, or the documents on which the M.R.O. had placed reliance on, in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had not cultivated the lands assigned in his favour. Failure to furnish copies of the said documents which forms the basis of the decision is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Since the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice , I do not see any reason to examine either question whether growing of a few trees by the petitioner as claimed by him, or naturally as contended by the respondents, would amount to cultivation or whether the 1st respondent had jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. Suﬃce to hold that quashing of this order would not preclude the respondents from taking action against the petitioner for violation of any of the conditions of assignment after complying with principles of natural justice and thereafter passing an order in accordance with law. It is also made clear that, in case the respondents proceed against the petitioner for resumption of assigned land, it is always open to the petitioner to take all such contentions, as are available to him in law, before the competent authority. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ 5-11-2008 asp