THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11989 of 2002 DATED:12.10.2009 Between: Jagili Lakshumma, And others. …Petitioners And The District Collector, Cuddapah, And another. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11989 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioners are residents of Anatapuram Village of Lakkireddipalli Mandal in Kadapa District. In 1993 each of them was assigned Ac.0.03 cents in survey Nos.556-21, 556-23 etc., being plot Nos.21, 23, 24 and 25 respectively. As per condition No.2 of the assignment order, the allottee is required to construct house within one year if it is hut and six months if it is a tiled house or daba. The petitioners could not comply with the condition allegedly as adjacent owners objected for construction of houses. The petitioners approached the authorities seeking protection for construction of houses, in vain. Therefore, they could not construct the houses. In 2002 they came to know that Tahasildar cancelled the pattas given to them. Petitioners contend that they are not put on notice and their request for providing protection was not considered. Therefore, they filed the instant Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in canceling the house site pattas without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary. The Writ Petition was admitted by this Court on 05.07.2002. This Court also passed interim orders not to dispossess the petitioners. In spite of the same, respondents did not file any counter affidavit. Tahasildar filed counter affidavit on 07.09.2009, inter alia, stating that for violation of conditions of assignment the land assigned was resumed by the Government by proceedings dated 25.11.2000. The allegation of the petitioners that they were not put on notice before passing cancellation order is not specifically denied. It is stated that as the assignees are not residing in Rayachoty Village and their whereabouts were not known, notices were served by substituted service by beat of tom-tom in the Village and by affixing the said notice in the notice board of the Gram Panchayat. A copy of the resumption order bearing Ref.No.B/311/2000, dated 25.11.2000, is annexed to the counter affidavit. The matter came before this Court on three occasions earlier. This Court directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) to produce the original file containing the cancellation orders and necessary proceedings/steps that were taken before passing the cancellation orders. The file has not been produced before this Court. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also fairly submits that there was no specific cancellation order except resumption order. From this an inference can be drawn that Tahasildar proceeded in haste and before canceling the orders. Learned Assistant Government Pleader across the bar submits that after resuming the land, the same was allotted under Integrated Novel Development in Rural Areas and Model Municipal Areas (INDIRAMMA). Even, there is no material placed before this Court to support the contention. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land is still vacant and the petitioners are eligible for allotment. In view of the rival contentions and also having regard to the pleadings, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer and file an appeal against orders of resumption in Ref.No.B/311/2000, dated 25.11.2000. It shall be open to them to request for reassignment of the pattas if the land is still vacant as the petitioners allegedly do not own any houses. Such a request shall be considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, having jurisdiction over the matter. This exercise may be completed within a period of two months. Ten days time is granted to the petitioners to file the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 12.10.2009 vs