IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2985 of 2005 Between: Mangali Sattaiah … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Anantha Nageswar Rao for Sri J. Ashvini Kumar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2985 of 2005 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 08.02.2005 passed by respondent No.2. Heard Sri P. Anantha Nageswar Rao representing Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. The petitioner was allotted a house plot under rehabilitation and resettlement package apart from a sum of Rs.55,600/- in connection with acquisition of lands for the purpose of establishment of International Airport sanctioned to the petitioner. By the impugned order allotment of house site plot and sanction of Rs.55,600/- under the rehabilitation and resettlement package were cancelled and the amount was directed to be recovered from the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order, respondent No.1 has not given any notice to him. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the allegation that notice was not given to the petitioner is not specifically denied. Irrespective of the merits of the contentions raised by the respondents, who justified passing of the impugned order on various grounds, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the short ground that no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the said order. It cannot be disputed that the impugned order has the effect of causing adverse civil consequences to the petitioner and such an order should not have been passed behind his back without giving him an opportunity of hearing. On this short ground and without going in to the merits of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.2 to initiate fresh action, if he so desires and take action after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.4034 of 2005 and WVMP.No.891 of 2005 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.06.2008 ES