WP(C) 5417/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioners, by the present petition, have challenged the order date d 6.11.2009 passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Darrang, Mongoldo i cancelling the order of allotment of land made in their favour in the year 196 7 on the ground that the persons named in the said order, which includes the pet itioners, either sold the allotted land or otherwise transferred their land and they did not pay the annual revenue and tax regularly or they are not in possess ion. The main ground of challenge is that before passing such order by the Ad dl. Deputy Commissioner on 6.11.2009 no notice was issued and served on the peti tioners though in the said order a mention has been made about notice. I have heard Mr. H Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as M s Phukan, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the impugned order dated 6.11.2009 and the statements made in the writ petition more particularly i n para 15 thereof has submitted that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner has passed th e said order cancelling the allotment of the land made in their favour without s erving any notice, though they are entitled to such notice before taking any dec ision relating to the cancellation of the allotment. The learned counsel, theref ore, submits that the impugned order dated 6.11.2009 needs to be interfered with . Ms Phukan, learned State counsel on the other hand referring to the affi davit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2; namely the Deputy C ommissioner, Darrang has submitted that before passing such order and on the bas is of the field verification report submitted by the Revenue staff, notices were issued and served on the petitioners and since no objection was filed despite s ervice of notice the authority has passed the order dated 6.11.2009 having satis fied that the land allotted were either sold or otherwise transferred or they ar e not found to be in possession and also on the ground of non payment of annual revenue and tax regularly. This Court vide order dated 6.4.2011 upon noticing the rival contentions directed the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mongoldoi, who has passed the impugned order, to produce the relevant records reflecting service of such notic e on the petitioners fixing 11.5.2011 for that purpose. On the prayer made by th e learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam this Court vide order dated 11.5.20 11 extended the time till today i.e. 1.6.2011 for production of records, indicat ing that such opportunity was given as last chance. It was also made clear in th e said order that in the event of non production of record necessary presumption would be drawn. As noticed above, the petitioners’ contention in the present writ petiti on is that before passing of such order cancelling the allotment on 6.11.2009 no notice was issued. It is not in dispute that the land was allotted either in th e name of the petitioners or in the name of their predecessors-in-interest in th e year 1967. Such allotment has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 6.11. 2009 passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner. In the affidavit-in-opposition a statement has been made relating to the service of notice before passing of such order, which statement could not be su bstantiated by the respondents by producing the records. In the said affidavit-i n-opposition also copy of such notice, which was stated to be served on any of t he petitioners, has not been annexed. That being the position, the averments made by the respondent No. 2 in t he affidavit relating to the issuance and service of notice on the petitioners c annot be accepted. Since the petitioners were allotted with the land in the year 1967, they are entitle to a notice before passing the order of cancellation of the allotme nt. The impugned order dated 6.11.2009 having been passed by the Addl. Deputy Co mmissioner without serving such notice cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and as such is set aside. It would, however, not preclude the respondent authorities from initiati ng a fresh process for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petit ioners or their predecessor-in-interest, in accordance with law, if so advised. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed as indicated above. No cost.