THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITIN No.9230 of 2002 ORDER: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (first respondent) dated 21.03.2002, confirming the order of the Joint Collector, Nellore dated 23.10.1999, whereby assignments granted earlier in favour of the petitioners herein were cancelled, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioners, 12 in number, were all assigned different extents of lands. On the ground that petitioner Nos.1 to 8 were not residents of Velpulagunta Village, and as others were cultivating their lands, the assignments granted in their favour were cancelled. Cancellation of assignment of petitioner Nos.2, 10, 11 and 12 was on the ground that they were not landless poor persons at the time of assignment. The assignment of petitioner No.9 was cancelled on the ground that the original assignee died, and the land was in possession of third parties. It is the petitioners’ specific case, both before the Commissioner and this Court, that no show cause notice was issued proposing to cancel the assignments granted in their favour and, it is only on the basis of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, that the Joint Collector had issued notices of hearing to some of the petitioners and, had, thereafter, cancelled the assignments made in their favour. Before the Commissioner, the petitioners raised 19 grounds which he has extracted in the order under challenge in this Writ Petition. However, except to record his conclusion that some of the petitioners were not residing at Velpulagunta Village; some of them were not in possession of the land which was occupied by some others; and, with respect to one assignee, the land was in possession of another assignee, none of the several contentions raised by the petitioners herein before the Commissioner in ground Nos.1 to 19 have been dealt with. The power exercised by the Commissioner is quasi-judicial. As has been held by the Supreme Court in S.N.Mukerjee v. Union of India[1] failure to assign reasons would vitiate the order. I see no reason, therefore, to deal with any of the contentions urged before this Court by Sri M.P.Chandramouli, Learned Counsel for the petitioners. The impugned order of the first respondent, dated 21.03.2002, is quashed on the ground that it is bereft of reasons. The first respondent shall, as expeditiously as possible and, in any case not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, afford the petitioners’ an opportunity of hearing and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order dealing with the objections raised by them. Sri M.P.Chandramouli, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would assert that there was a stay pending revision before the first respondent, and that the interim order of stay passed by this Court on 14.05.2002 subsists even as on date. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct that the interim order of stay passed by this Court earlier shall continue to remain in operation till final orders are passed afresh by the first respondent. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:03.02.2011 usd [1] AIR 1990 SC 1984