THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.23399, 23714, 23776, 23817 & 23818 of 2011 Dated 13th September, 2011 Between: Banda Karthik …Petitioner (W.P.No.23399 of 2011) And The State of A.P., rep.by the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assignments), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents (W.P.No.23399 of 2011) Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue (Assignments) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: This batch of writ petitions raises common issues. Therefore, they are heard and being disposed of by this common order. These writ petitions are filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to demolish the residential houses of the petitioners situated in Pearl Valley, Survey No.283, Nizampet Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) submitted that this Court disposed of writ petitions raising identical issues in W.P.No.21073 of 2011 and batch, by common order, dated 19.08.2011, wherein this Court has quashed the orders impugned therein on the short ground that they were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the order hereunder: “The impugned orders are quashed for violation of principles of natural justice and non-compliance of Rule 3 read with Form-II of the 2007 Rules. The petitioners are permitted to file their objections to the show-cause notices within two weeks from today. In case such objections are filed within the aforementioned period, the fourth respondent shall consider the objections, in accordance with law; pass reasoned orders thereupon; and communicate the orders to the petitioners. In case no objections are filed within the aforementioned period of 15 days, it is open to the fourth respondent to pass orders afresh, in accordance with law, and communicate the said orders to the petitioners. The fourth respondent shall not give effect to the orders to be passed by him, for a period of one week from the date of communication of the orders to the petitioners herein, to enable them to avail such remedies as are available to them in law.” Sri M.S.Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, while agreeing in principle that the issues raised in both these batches are broadly similar, however, stated that there is one distinguishing feature between the two. He submitted that unlike in the batch of cases disposed of by the learned Judge, in the present cases, notices were not issued. This submission is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). Having regard to the above facts, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to respondent No.4 to issue a notice containing detailed facts on the basis of which the action is proposed to be taken, along with the material, if any, that may be relied upon by him. The petitioners shall be permitted to file their objections within fifteen days from the date of the notices. If objections are filed within the stipulated time, respondent No.4 shall consider the same, take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioners before seeking to proceed further. In the event respondent No.4 rejects the objections of the petitioners and seeks to proceed against the constructions already made, he shall defer such action for a period of seven days to enable the petitioners to avail their legal remedies. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, the interim applications, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th September, 2011 VGB