IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 23617 of 1998 Between: 1 Venkayalapati Satyanarayana, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Patavala (V), Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 K.Prakasha Rao, S/o. Satyam, R/o. Patavala (V), Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Collector, Kakinada, E.G.District 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to evict the petitioners from the lands in S.No.56 measuring Ac.5-00 (dry) (owned by petitioner No.1) and an extent of Ac.2-68 cts in the same survey No.56 (owned by petitioner No.2) of Patavala Village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District, and also any record of taking possession as illegal, null and void and for the consequential order directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid lands. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23617 of 1998 O R D E R The petitioners challenge the action of the respondent-authorities in seeking to evict them from the lands admeasuring Ac.7-68 cents in Sy.No.56 of Patavala Village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District, jointly held by them. It is their case that the lands donated by one Sri Pyda Ram Kumar to the Bhoodan Board was assigned to them under the proceedings of the Board dated 17.03.1988. Under the said proceedings, the ﬁrst petitioner claims to have been given an extent of Ac.5-00 cents of dry land in Sy.No.56 of Patavala Village, while the second petitioner claims to have been given an extent of Ac.2-68 cents of land in the same survey number of the village. It is stated that upon the complaints made by persons inimical to the petitioners, the Bhoodan Board had undertaken an enquiry as to whether the petitioners were not residents of Patavala Village and were staying at Kakinada. Upon such enquiry, the Board cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners initially, but the same was thereafter withdrawn by the Board under Proceedings dated 26.09.1995. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the subject lands and stated that they had invested substantially to bring the lands into a position ﬁt for pisciculture operations. It is their case that while matters stood thus, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District, the second respondent herein, came to their lands and threatened to take over the possession of the same. The petitioners complain that they were not put on notice about any action initiated against them in respect of the allotment of the land in their favour and approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking to protect their possession over the subject lands. This Court by interim order dated 20.08.998 direct ed status quo obtaining as on that date to be maintained. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the second respondent admitting to the fact that the subject lands were allotted to the petitioners by the Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hyderabad. It is however stated that during the enquiry by the Revenue Authorities, it came to light that the petitioners were not cultivating the lands and that they were not residents of Patavala Village. It is further stated that the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board after issuing show cause notices to the petitioners and also the donor cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioners and directed possession of the lands to be taken. According to the second respondent, the lands were taken possession of on 17.08.1998. Heard Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Sri M.V.Suresh asserted that in pursuance of the status quo order granted by this Court his clients continued to be in possession of the subject lands. The learned Assistant Government Pleader however denied the same and stated that the petitioners were not cultivating the subject lands even as on date. This disputed question of fact, however, need not trouble this Court at the present stage. In the light of the denial by the petitioners of their having received any notice prior to the cancellation of allotment of the lands in their favour, the matter can be decided on that short point. The records pertaining to the case were called for. The learned Assistant Government Pleader produced before me the letter said to have been addressed by the Secretary of the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District in Ref.No.BYB/C/140/96, dated 26.06.1997. As per this letter, by Proceedings No.BYB/C/140/96 dated 04.03.1997 the Board had cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners and had asked the second respondent to implement the same in the revenue records and cause intimation to the parties. It is stated in the letter dated 26.06.1997 that no report had been received with regard to the communication to the parties as requested in the earlier letter dated 04.03.1997. A perusal of the entire record produced before me does not throw any light upon service of any show cause notices to the petitioners prior to the cancellation of the allotment. The letter dated 26.06.1997 addressed by the Secretary of the Bhoodan Yagna Board shows that even the cancellation proceedings were sought to be served through the Oﬃce of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Tallarevu Mandal. The implication of this would be that had show-cause notices been issued to the petitioners, the Board would have sought service of the same upon them through the Oﬃce of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer. The silence of the records in this regard is therefore utmost crucial. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Section-24 of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the Act of 1965’) and Rule-9 of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan and Gramdan Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1965’). Under Section 24 of the Act of 1965, the Tahsildar is entitled to evict an allottee from the land allotted to him, if he fails, without suﬃcient cause, to cultivate the land personally during a period of two consecutive agricultural years. Under the Rules of 1965, and more speciﬁcally Rule-9(vii), the grant of land would be liable for cancellation if it be found that it was grossly inequitable or was made under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation. Needless to state, be it under Section-24 of the Act of 1965 or under Rule-9 of the Rules of 1965, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to cause notice of the proposed action to be served upon the allottee and only thereafter resort to a decision after aﬀording such allottee an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, though there is an averment in the counter to the eﬀect that show-cause notices were served upon the petitioners, the same is not borne out by the record. On the other hand, the record indicates that not only the show cause notices but also the ﬁnal cancellation proceedings were not served upon the petitioners. This, in my considered view constitutes a gross and incurable violation of the principles of the natural justice causing the petitioners grave prejudice. The proceedings initiated by the respondents for cancellation of the grants made by the Board in favour of the petitioners and the consequential action seeking to resume possession of the said lands are therefore found to be illegal and unsustainable. However, this would not preclude the authorities concerned from initiating action, strictly in accordance with law and in due compliance with the principles of natural justice, if grounds exist for cancellation of the grants made by the Board in favour of the petitioners and for resumption of the possession of the subject lands. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions and observations. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------- P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 10th NOVEMBER, 2008 PGS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23617 of 1998 10th NOVEMBER, 2008