IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.12212 of 2002 Between: Anreddy Rajaiah and five others. … Petitioners And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Odela, Karimnagar District and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue for R.1 to R.3. Sri V.S.K.Rama Rao for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 22-5- 2002 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal and unconstitutional. Heard Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioners felt aggrieved by proceedings dated 22-5-2002 issued by respondent No.2, whereby he directed the Assistant Director, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Karimnagar, to initiate necessary proposals to handover the land of Ac.0.20 guntas each, which is in occupation of the petitioners, in Survey No.1292 of Kanagarthi village to respondent No.4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners - who were assigned the lands in their respective occupation and given patta certiﬁcates dated 11-11-1994 by respondent No.1 - were not given any notice and opportunity of hearing before respondent No.2 passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the land, which is in occupation of the petitioners was assigned to his client and that, therefore, respondent No.2 has rightly directed the Assistant Director, Survey, Settlement & Land Records, Karimnagar, to initiate necessary proposal to hand over the said land to respondent No.4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the basis of the averments contained in the counter-aﬃdavit of respondent No.1, stated that assignments were granted to the petitioners irregularly. He invited my attention to para-1 of the counter-aﬃdavit and submitted that by the impugned order respondent No.2 merely directed to initiate the process for cancellation of irregular assignments; and that no action has so far been taken in this regard. From the contents of the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.1, it is evident that assignments were granted to the petitioners. But, according to the respondents, the said assignments were irregularly made. When the fact of assignment is not in dispute, the respondents cannot take unilateral action to deprive the petitioners of the assigned land without initiating appropriate proceedings for cancellation of the assignments. Though the impugned order does not have the direct eﬀect of immediate dispossession of the petitioners, it would nevertheless prejudice the petitioners’ interest if the same is acted upon by the subordinates of respondent No.2. The law is well settled that no order prejudicial to the interest of a person, which is likely to be aﬀected, can be passed without following the principles of natural justice. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. Liberty is given to respondents 1 to 3 to initiate proceedings in the event it is found that the assignments granted in favour of the petitioners were irregular or illegal. Respondent No.4 is also given liberty to approach respondents 1 to 3 for delineation of his land and on such application the petitioners shall be given notice before the land given to respondent No.4 is demarcated. ------------------------- -------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:30-10-2008 MNR