IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16914 of 2008 Between: Boddapati Saraswathi @ Achiyamma … Petitioner And The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.D. Phani Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Sri N. Ranga Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16914 of 2008 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in cancelling the property tax assessment of the petitioner vide Assessment No.100005/70316 through proceedings, dated Nil.02.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice. The petitioner is in possession of house bearing No.11-248/3 situated over the land admeasuring 420 square yards in Sy.No.1/2A of Ramakrishna Nagar otherwise known as Judgegari Thota, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. On the petitioner approaching the respondents, the property was assessed to tax with Tax Assessment No.100005/70316. By the impugned communication, the said assessment was cancelled. On receipt of the said order, the petitioner sent legal notice, dated 17.03.2008 to the respondents. In reply to the said legal notice, respondent No.1 sent letter, dated 10.04.2008, wherein it was informed that on one Ravi Nookeswara Rao approaching it with a representation that a civil suit between him and the petitioner is pending in O.S.No.170 of 2005 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and that he is the owner of the land by virtue of allotment vide G.O.Ms.No.705, dated 10.09.2004, the Commissioner of respondent No.1 Corporation has cancelled the assessment granted in favour of the petitioner. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of the impugned proceedings, dated Nil.02.2008, shows that no reasons have been assigned for cancelling the assessment except stating that in pursuance of the purported order of the Commissioner of respondent No.1, the assessment was cancelled. As noted above, in reply to the petitioner’s legal notice, it is stated in the letter of the Commissioner that a civil suit is pending between the petitioner and Ravi Nookeswara Rao and that the land allotted in favour of the latter vide G.O.Ms.No.705, dated 10.09.2004 was suspended by this Court by order, dated 16.06.2005 in Writ Petition No.12830 of 2005 filed by the petitioner. In my opinion, if the respondents found justifiable reasons for cancelling the assessment standing in favour of the petitioner, the minimum that is expected of them is to give the petitioner a notice and opportunity of being heard. The respondents have not followed this procedure, which is a well recognised in the sphere of administrative law and which is treated as an integral part of principles of natural justice. Indeed, it has come out at the hearing that the Commissioner has not passed any separate order directing cancellation, except that, a note file proposing cancellation of assessment, was signed by various functionaries including the Commissioner. Even if a decision to initiate proceedings for cancellation of assessment was taken by respondent No.1, before passing any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner, she should have been given a notice to submit her objections and an appropriate order thereafter ought to have been passed. As the petitioner is denied a fair opportunity to put-forth her case, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and Ravi Nookeswara Rao and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, they can pass a fresh order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.22269 and 21963 of 2008 and 29535 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.08.2011 ES