THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10805 OF 2003 Dated 21st December, 2009 Between: M.Vijayakaran …Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By its Secretary, Municipal Administraton And Urban Development Department and Another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.V.R.Rudraprasad Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.292 dated 21.05.2003, whereby respondent No.1 had cancelled G.O.Rt.No.1590, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (D2) Department, dated 19.10.1992. This case has a chequered career. To make the long story short, it will suffice to mention a few relevant facts. The short issue that is being persistently raised by the petitioner through various rounds of litigation is his land was affected by execution of a 80 feet master plan road and that neither he nor his vendor has received compensation in respect of the land, which is now stated to be utilised for formation of 80 feet master plan road. In pursuance of a resolution passed by the Warangal Municipality, as it then was, on 10.09.1977, Plot No.80 was proposed to be allotted to the petitioner in lieu of the land allegedly utilised by the Government for formation of a master plan road. After certain turn of events, which may not be relevant to be mentioned in the context of the present dispute, the State Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1590 dated 19.10.1992 agreeing for allotment of Plot Nos.80 and 81 in lieu of the land acquired from the petitioner. A third party filed W.P.No.14755 of 1992, as a piece of public interest litigation, questioning the said G.O. By judgment dated 14.12.1995, this Court allowed the said writ petition and directed the Government to review its earlier decision allotting the plots in favour of the petitioner. The allotment was cancelled by respondent No.2 vide G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 02.03.2002. Questioning the said cancellation, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6389 of 2002. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 07.11.2002. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “A perusal of the impugned order does not show that either the second respondent issued any notice or provided opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the impugned order cancelling the benefits that were conferred under its earlier order. Under the above circumstances, without going into the merits of the subject matter, the impugned order of the second respondent under G.O.Ms.No.94, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (D2) Department dated 02.03.2002 cancelling its earlier order in G.O.Rt.No.1590 dated 19.10.1992 is set aside for non compliance of the principles of natural justice and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner. While issuing notice to the petitioner, the first respondent is further directed to furnish copies of the report or other documents on which the Government proposed to take action, so that the petitioner would get an opportunity to represent his case effectively. The second respondent is also directed to consider and pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the second respondent failed to pass appropriate orders in the present proceedings within the above stipulated period, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to implement its earlier orders passed under G.O.Rt.No.1590 dated 19.10.1992.” Purporting to follow the direction given by this Court in the above mentioned writ petition, the Government issued Memo No.14357/D2/2001-10 dated 26.02.2003, calling upon the petitioner to submit his objections to the proposed cancellation. In reply thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 05.04.2003. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued the impugned G.O. At the hearing, Sri C.V.R.Rudraprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned G.O suffers from absence of reasons. He also submitted that respondent No.1 failed to follow the procedure indicated by this Court in its order in W.P.No.6389 of 2002 and that as respondent No.1 failed to deal with any of the pleas raised by the petitioner in his detailed explanation, the impugned G.O cannot be sustained in law. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that on the basis of the material produced before respondent No.1, it was satisfied that no land of the petitioner was affected in the 80 feet master plan road and that the original owner was already duly paid compensation for the land taken over from him for the purpose of establishment of grain market and therefore, none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner merit consideration. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1. In his detailed explanation, the petitioner specifically requested respondent No.1 to give him an opportunity of being heard, through his counsel Sri C.V.R.Rudraprasad, by issuing an advance notice to enable him to represent his case properly. In the impugned order, there is no reference to the said request, much less rejection of such a request by respondent No.1. Though the impugned order runs to four pages, substantial part of the said order is devoted to narration of factual background of the case. The only paragraph in which the case was dealt on merits is at page 4. It is stated therein that the reply given by the petitioner was examined in detail in consultation with the Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation and it is observed that the petitioner’s claim that 1,714 square yards of his land in Survey No.13 of Girmajipet Village was lost in 80 feet master plan road was proved to be false as the master plan road is on the eastern side of Survey No.13 and an area measuring Ac.0.10 guntas was already taken over by the Government long back for construction of grain market from its original owner Sri G.Rajaiah. To derive support to this conclusion, the Government referred to “relevant records such as 1954-55 khasra pahani and other documents.” Looking to the manner in which respondent No.1 has disposed of the case, I am of the view that respondent No.1 has adopted a rather casual approach in dealing with the valuable rights of the petitioner. As noted above, the petitioner placed reliance on several aspects in his explanation. None of those aspects have been referred to or discussed by respondent No.1. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this case deserved affording of an opportunity of personal hearing by which the petitioner or his counsel would have drawn the attention of respondent No.1 to the material evidence on which the petitioner was placing reliance to drive home his plea that his land was utilised by the Municipality for laying of 80 feet master plan road. Respondent No.1 has, thus, failed to give a proper opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case despite a clear direction given by this Court in W.P.No.6389 of 2002. On account of the haste in which the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner’s claim for allotment of an alternative land has not only been rejected but the petitioner is subjected to further litigation for years on end. Respondent No.1 could have avoided this situation by giving a proper opportunity to the petitioner to project his case before taking a final decision in the matter. Though certain reasons are sought to be mentioned in the counter-affidavit, the law is well-settled that no authority can be permitted to supplement the reasons by way of an affidavit. (S e e Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Goverdhan Das Bhanji[1] and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner[2]) For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned G.O is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to give the petitioner or his counsel, if chosen by the petitioner, an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a fresh order by dealing with all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It shall complete this exercise, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st December, 2009 vrn [1] AIR 1952 SC 16 [2] AIR 1978 SC 851