THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2008 of 2008 Between: State Bank of India. .. PETITIONER and The State of A.P., and others. .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2008 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner-State Bank of India Institute of Rural Development that it is a training center and as the land was required for construction of an Institution of Rural Banking, the Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India approached the State of Andhra Pradesh for allotment of the land admeasuring Ac.57-11 gts. in Sy.No.26 situated at Gachibowli Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Accordingly, after getting reports from the then Collector, Ranga Reddy District, on 10-07-1980 and 22-09-1980 and on the recommendations of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the Government issued Memo No.1291/P.1/80-2, dated 28-11- 1980, directing the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad, to handover possession of the Government land admeasuring Ac.57-11 gts. in Sy.No.26 of Gachibowli Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to the petitioner on payment of market value at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre along with other charges. Accordingly, the petitioner paid total sale consideration of Rs.3,43,650/- on 04-12-1980. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.498, Revenue (P) Department, dated 24-03-1981 transferring the land in favour of the petitioner subject to the result of the Civil Suit filed by HACA against the Government and if ultimately HACA succeeds, the land shall be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation amount shall be determined and it shall be payable by the petitioner. It is stated that the Government alienated the said land treating it as its own, on the market value. While so, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, issued proceedings No.B/255/1991, dated 16-07-1991, for resumption of part of the land admeasuring Ac.38-31 gts. in Sy.No.26 on the ground that the petitioner has not developed the said land. The petitioner questioned the said Memo in W.P.No.10018 of 1991 before this Court and this Court by order, dated 02-08-1991 in W.P.M.P.No.12640 of 1991 directed the respondents not to take possession of the petitioner’s land pending further orders, which is said to have been continued and ultimately, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 14-09-1994 in pursuance to the Memo issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 07-02-1994. While so, the Tahsildar, Serilingampally, issued impugned Notice No.B/255/1991, dated 31-01-2008, stating that the petitioner has not used the land admeasuring Ac.10-00 gts. and as per condition No.11 of the conditions, in the event of failure to utilize the land for the purpose for which it was allotted, the Government shall be at liberty to resume the land and reenter into it. Accordingly, it was observed that the petitioner has not put the entire land allotted to use and the land is found vacant and lying idle and accordingly, the petitioner is directed to handover possession of the said land within one week from the date of receipt of the notice. Though the impugned proceeds are issued as notice, it is in the nature of final order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no show- cause notice has been issued and the respondents unilaterally assumed and presumed that the land in question has not been utilized. It is further stated that in fact, the entire land has been utilized and as per the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.498, dated 24-03-1981, there are only five clauses and there is no such condition No.11 and it is not known where from condition No.11 has been brought into and cited in the notice. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that it is in the nature of only show cause notice and accordingly requested to treat it is as a show-cause notice so as to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the said request cannot be considered as it is a show-cause notice but it is in the nature of final order and it is not stated as to what proceedings of condition No.11 has been violated. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned notice of the 5th respondent, dated 31-01-2008, and keeping it open for the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 05-02-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in two days (B/o) Prv