IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7643 of 2002 Between: Talari Yerrappa … Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kudair Mandal, Kudair, Anantapur District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G. Krishna Murthy Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondents 4&5: Sri K. Maheswara Rao The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7643 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 10.05.2001 cancelling the D-Form patta granted in favour of the petitioner and order dated 08.06.2001 of respondent No.1, by which a D-Form patta was granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. I have heard Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel representing respondent Nos.4 and 5. The petitioner is a resident of Jeedepalli Village, Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapur District. He was granted an assignment by way of D-Form patta by the then Tahsildar, Anantapur on 22.03.1975 for an extent of Acs.5.00 in survey No.1-1-D of M.M. Halli Village, Kodiar Mandal. The mother of the petitioner was also similarly assigned an extent of Acs.5.00 in survey No.1-1-C of the same village on the same day. The petitioner specifically averred that they have been cultivating the lands and in recognition thereof, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kudair, issued pattadar pass books and title deeds under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. When respondent Nos.4 and 5 sought to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the said lands, he filed O.S.No.306 of 2001 for permanent injunction against respondent No.4 and obtained interim injunction on 15.06.2001. In the said proceedings, the petitioner came to know for the first time through the pleadings raised by respondent No.4 that the impugned orders have been passed by respondent No.1. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition with the plea that respondent No.1 has cancelled the assignments granted in favour of him and his deceased mother behind his back and without notice to him. No counter-affidavits have been filed by any of the respondents. At the hearing, Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned orders suffer from serious procedural illegalities and irregularities. He contended that the petitioner was not aware of the cancellation of his assignment and granting the same in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, as neither show cause notices nor the impugned orders were served on him. He further submitted that the impugned orders do not contain sound and valid reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by respondent No.1 that the petitioner has not cultivated the lands and thereby violated the conditions of assignment. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) submitted that as the petitioner refused to receive the show cause notices, they were served through affixture and therefore there is no illegality in the impugned orders. She has also tried to defend the orders passed by respondent No.1 on merits. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. With respect to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed the original record before the Court, a perusal of which reveals that show cause notice dated 03.05.2001 was shown to have been sent through the VAO, who has made the endorsement to the effect that as the addressee refused to receive the notice, the same was published by beat of tom tom and publication of notice in public place. On the original orders of cancellation of assignments, an identical endorsement was made by the VAO. Interestingly, neither of the two endorsements contains the dates on which they were prepared. Be that as it may, in my opinion, respondent No.1 has failed to follow a fair and proper procedure in service of notices and orders on the petitioner. The provisions of the Board Standing Orders did not lay down specific procedure for service of notices and orders. In the absence of any such procedure, the respondents are bound to follow the procedure ordinarily followed, namely; sending notice through the registered post, if the petitioner refused to receive the same when it was sought to be served in-person. No explanation is offered by respondent No.1 as to why he has failed to follow this procedure of sending notices through the registered post. In my opinion, the procedure of service through affixture, as an alternative method for sending through registered post, would lead to arbitrariness and scope for manipulations. In a given case, it is possible for the officer concerned to fabricate the record to show that notice was served through affixture even though such a service is not affected. In Akkana Sivudu Naidu vs. Tahsildar, Bobbili, Srikakulam District and others[1] this Court held that under the Board Standing Orders, there is no specific procedure prescribed for communicating the order by affixture on the dwelling house of the party if he refuses to receive the same. Therefore, I am of the opinion that respondent No.1 has failed to follow the fair and transparent procedure in serving notices and orders on the petitioner. Another relevant aspect to be considered in this case is the undue haste exhibited by respondent No.1 in hurriedly cancelling the assignments granted as far back as the year 1975 after a lapse of 26 years. The impugned orders show that the show cause notices were dated 03.05.2001 and the petitioner was purportedly given a week’s time for submitting his objections. In my view, there was absolutely no need for respondent No.1 to show the kind of urgency he has shown by not even allowing the petitioner to have reasonable time to submit his explanation. This apart, a careful reading of the impugned orders shows that respondent No.1 was solely guided by the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not brought the lands under cultivation. No where it is stated that the Mandal Revenue Inspector has held enquiry in the presence of the petitioner or his statement has been recorded. The ground on which the assignments were cancelled is that while the petitioner never cultivated the land, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been in possession and cultivating the same. However, the petitioner filed copies of pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in his favour in respect of Ac.7.50 cents of land, which, prima facie, show that the petitioner holds the land and has been cultivating the same. Had a proper notice been served on the petitioner, he would have put-forth his case. Denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and they are accordingly quashed. Respondent No.1 is, however, left free to initiate action afresh, if he intends to do so, by serving proper notices on the petitioner calling for his objections to the proposed resumption of the land. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.9560 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.07.2010. ES [1] W.P.No.2262 of 1976