THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.26959 OF 2001 O R D E R This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 15.10.2001 in Rc.B.No.706/01 of the respondents, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The case of the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that they are all landless poor persons belonging to Scheduled Caste Community and they were granted DKT pattas. The particulars are that, the 1st petitioners’ mother Smt. Goudaperi Marthamma was granted DKT patta vide.Dis.No.336/97 dated 27.6.1988 to an extent of Acs.3- 00 in Sy.No.866 part of Chalamcherla village; 2nd petitioner’s father, Goudaperi Lakshmaiah, was granted DKT patta vide F.Dis.No.333/97 dated 27.6.1988 to an extent of Acs.3-00 in Sh.Nos.865-P of Chalamcherla village, the 3rd petitioner was granted DKT patta vide F.Dis.No.337/97 dated 27.6.1988 to an extent of Acs.3-00 in Sy.No.866-P, the 4th petitioner was granted DKT patta vide F.Dis.No.335/97 dated 27.6.1988 to an extent of Acs.3-00 in Sy.No.866-P, 5th petitioner was granted DKT patta vide F.Dis.No.332/97 dated 27.6.1988 to an extent of Acs.3-00 in Sy.No.865-P, the 6th petitioner was granted DKT patta videF.Dis.No.334/97 dated 27.6.1988 to an extent of Acs.3-00 in Sy.No.865-P, the 7th petitioner was granted DKT patta videF.Dis.No.329/97 dated 27.6.1988 to an extent of Acs.3-00 in Sy.No.864-P and the 8th petitioner was granted DKT patta videF.Dis.No.331/97 dated 27.6.1988 to an extent of Acs.3-00 in Sy.No.864- P of Chalamcherla village, Kavali Mandal Nellore District. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that when the DKT pattas granted to them were in force and without conducting any enquiry and without following the due process of law, the respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali issued the impugned notice dated 15.10.2001 directing them to vacate the land in question. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. No counter affidavit is filed. 5. This court while admitting the writ petition on 2.2.2002, granted interim stay. 6. The impugned notice dated 15.10.2001 is issued in Telugu and the English translation is filed along with the material papers to the writ petition and the same is extracted for ready reference: “The lands in Survey Nos.864, 865 and 866 of Chalamcherla village, Kavali Mandal are the Government lands. It is informed to all that nobody should occupy the said lands and undertake any activities in the said lands. But, you, the residents of Ammavaripadu village, Gundluru Mandal, have violated the Government orders by occupying the said lands. Hence, you are called upon to vacate the said lands and inform the same in this office within one week from the date of the receipt of this notice. Otherwise, you are hereby informed that appropriate action will be initiated against you.” 7. From the above notice, the case of the respondent is that the petitioners have occupied the Government lands and have violated the Government lands and hence they are directed to vacate the said lands. But the case of the petitioners, which is not disputed by filing any counter, is that they were granted DKT pattas and the same are in force. Therefore, when the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners are in force, without canceling them by conducting any enquiry, issuance of the impugned notice directing them to vacate the land, cannot be sustained. Further the impugned notice indicates that the petitioners have violated the Government orders. But there are no details with regard to the violations and as noted above, no enquiry is also conducted. It is also to be noticed that the impuged notice does not contain full particulars. A Division Bench of this court in LETTER v. COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE[1] held that whenever any proceedings are to be initiated by the revenue authorities for resumption of the land, they have to specify the full particulars, enabling them to submit an effective explanation The relevant portion of the order of the Division Bench is extracted as under: “Whenever any proceedings are to be initiated by the revenue authorities for resumption of the land, they have to specify: (a)the nature of occupancy rights granted, namely, whether occupancy rights were granted on collection of market value or free of market value in favour of the landless poor persons; (b) whether the said lands falls within the notified areas restricting inalienabiity as per the notification issued under Section 58-A of the Telangana Area Land Revenue Act. (c) Whether Act no.9 of 1977 applies to the nature of occupancy rights/assignment granted; (d) If any changes in the revenue records are effected, reasons for change from the original entries in khasra pahani of 1954-55 or subsequent to the same; the notice to be issued for enabling them to make an effective explanation to meet the contentions and submit their explanation to the action proposed. Unless such particulars are furnished for submitting an effective explanation, lands cannot be resumed merely basing upon the revenue entries so made.” 8. From the above, it is clear that all he particulars, which are necessary and relevant, shall be put to the affected persons, in order to enable them to offer explanations effectively. Otherwise, it is obvious that issuing of such a notice, would be an empty formality. 9. In the present case, the case of the petitioners is that they were granted DKT pattas and the said pattas were not cancelled by conducting any enquiry. In the impugned notice, no particulars are mentioned and as already noted above, what are the violations, which the petitioners have committed and what is the nature of the land and there is no reference to any grant of DKT pattas. In the circumstances, as the impugned notice is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and further as the impugned notice is sans detailed particulars, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 10. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. 11. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondent from taking appropriate action in accordance with law. Till such time, the interim order of this court granting stay shall be in force. 12. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. AVS ------------------------ 23—04—2009 [1] 2008(5) ALD 626 (DB)