THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 21796 of 1999 Order: Seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in restraining the petitioners from constructing houses in the land assigned to them in Survey No.283/2, situated at Chinnamandem village and Mandal, Kadapa District, without acquiring the said land under the Land Acquisition Act, as arbitrary and illegal, the present writ petition is ﬁled by seven assignees, all of them residents of Chinnamandem village and Mandal, Kadapa District. The petitioners claim to be in possession of 0.19 cents of land, situated in Survey No.283/2 of Chinnamandem village and Mandal, Kadapa District, for more than 50 years and to have been given DKT Pattas on 17.06.1985 to enable them to construct houses. The petitioners claim that they have not contravened any of the conditions of the house site pattas granted in their favour in the year 1985 and state that, when the third respondent tried to evict them from the land, they had earlier filed W.P. No. 33571 of 1997 and that this Court had directed the respondents not to interfere with their possession except in accordance with law. It is their case that, without acquiring the land, the respondents had sought to hand over possession of the land to the APSRTC which was in the process of calling for tenders for construction of a bus shelter. The petitioners would contend that they have no other houses, except the houses which were constructed in the subject land and that, if they were evicted, they will be put to irreparable loss and injury. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents it is admitted that the petitioners were assigned lands for construction of houses in the year 1985 and, since they violated condition Nos.11 and 12 of the DKT pattas, proceedings were initiated and notices were issued on 30.06.1989 calling upon them to show cause as to why the pattas granted in their favour should not be cancelled, that the said notices were served by affixture on 01.07.1989 as they are not residing in the land and that the said land was kept vacant, that, while petitioner No.1 to 3 refused to take notices, petitioner Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 were served notices, that petitioner Nos.4 to 6 had submitted their explanation on 27.07.1989 expressing their inability to construct the houses and had requested for six months time for construction of the houses and, since the petitioners failed to comply with the conditions of the assignment, orders of resumption were passed on 26.12.1989. Since the petitioners contended that notices were not served on them, the Tahsildar, Chinnamandem, was directed to submit a report as to whether any order was passed canceling the assignment in favour of the petitioners, and as to whether they continued to be in possession as on date, of the land which was assigned to them earlier. Accordingly, the Tahsildar has submitted a report dated 03.11.2008, wherein he has speciﬁcally stated that the orders of resumption of the land, assigned to the seven petitioners, were passed on 26.12.1989, after issuing notices to them, since they had violated the conditions on which house sites were assigned in their favour, that notices relating to assignees 1, 2 and 3 were served on their father, that notices on fourth assignee was served on her husband and that notices on petitioners 5, 6 and 7 were served on the three assignees. With regards possession as on date, the Tahsildar states that subsequently house site pattas were granted in favour of the 5th petitioner’s wife in Survey No.283/7 for an extent of 0.01 ¼ cents on 03.05.2005 and that she had raised a basement thereon, that house site patta was also granted in favour of the wife of the 6th petitioner in Survey No.283/5 for an extent of 0.0 ¾ cents, vide proceedings dated 31.05.2005 and that the wife of the 6th petitioner was also granted 0.02 cents of land in Survey No.283/5 on 31.05.2005, wherein she had raised a basement in an extent of 0.01 cent of land. The cancellation of assignment was for violation of the conditions of the assignment and was passed after compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is evident that notices were served and, since the cancellation was as early as in the year 1989 and the petitioners no longer remained in possession of the said lands, I see no reason now to pass any order in their favour. Suﬃce to record that the spouses of petitioners 5 and 6 have been granted house sites on which they have raised structures upto the basement level. The relief sought for in the writ petition cannot, however, be granted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 05.11.2008 Nsr