THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16703 OF 2008 Dated: 27.10.2010 Between: Muthyala Venkataramanaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Kadapa District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16703 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to have been granted cowl pattas by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajampet vide proceedings dated 15.09.1987 in respect of Ac.0.58 cents in survey No.180/3, Ac.1.38 cents in survey No.180/4; Ac.2.74 cents in survey No.180/5 and Ac.2.84 cents in survey No.180/6 situated in Pulapathur Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District for planting trees in the Government poramboke lands under Andhra Pradesh Board Standing Orders 19-B (for short, ‘B.S.O 19-B’). It is claimed that after making the lands fit for cultivation, the petitioners had planted mango trees, which are yielding crops. While so, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 19.05.1992 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the cowl pattas granted in their favour should not be cancelled and the land should not be resumed. The petitioners state that they submitted a detailed explanation dated 01.06.1992 denying all the allegations made in the show cause notice. Since no further orders were passed thereupon, the petitioners were under an impression that the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent were dropped. However, a fresh notice dated 23.04.2008 was issued with the same allegations. Having received the same, the petitioners appeared before the 2nd respondent and produced all the relevant documents to substantiate their claim. Without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any fresh notice, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 16.06.2008 cancelling the licences granted to the petitioners for planting trees in the Government poramboke land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent authority. As the 1st respondent failed to pass any order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.14527 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his file and till then, status quo was directed to be maintained. Even before the order passed by this Court was communicated, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 22.07.2008 holding that the appeal was not maintainable, as there was no provision to file an appeal under B.S.O 19-B. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the order dated 16.06.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to B.S.O 19-B. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.06.2008 shows that the proceedings for cancellation of the licences of the petitioners were initiated on the basis of a representation said to have been received from the villagers of Pulapathur Village alleging that the petitioners were not eligible for grant of Government land as they were not landless poor. The impugned order also refers to the show cause notice dated 19.05.1992 issued by the then Revenue Divisional Officer. However, the 2nd respondent failed to refer to the explanation given by the petitioners denying all the allegations made therein. Admittedly, no further opportunity was given to the petitioners to make their representation against the proposed action and no further enquiry was conducted. Thus it is clear that the impugned order, which was passed cancelling the licences granted to the petitioners, was not in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioners so as to enable them to make their representation against the action proposed and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the explanations of the petitioners. No costs. ___________ Date: 27.10.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd