IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9982 of 2008 Between: Davanam Pedda Obaiah @ Pedda Obanna S/o.Santaiah Muthuluripadu Harijanawada, Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kadapa,.Kadapa District 2 The Tahsildar, Khajipet Mandal,Kadapa District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus holding that the action of the 2nd respondent in canceling theassignment of the land bearing Survey No.865/5-B at Bhumayapalle village, Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa District without following the due process of law without communicating any order is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.9982 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner states that his wife, namely, Arunamma is assignee of the land admeasuring Ac.1.24 cents in Survey No.865/5-B of Bhumayapalli village having been issued patta bearing No.5/1412 dated 10.07.2002 by the second respondent-Tahsildar, Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa District and that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land since then and that his family is cultivating the said land by raising paddy crop. It is the case of the petitioner that his wife became mentally instable after the death of her parents and she left the village in March, 2006 and since then her whereabouts are not known and that at the instance of the local political leaders the second respondent-Tahsildar cancelled the assignment granted in favour of his wife without issuing any notice either to him or in the name of his wife and that on 28.02.2008 he submitted a letter to the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, to direct the second respondent-Tahsildar to furnish the information as to whether there was any action proposed for resumption of assigned land but nobody appeared before the Lok Adalat on 14.04.2008 when the matter was taken up. Hence he filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the second respondent-Tahsildar in canceling the assignment granted in favour of his wife without following the due process of law. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner and his wife left the village and, therefore, the assignment earlier granted in favour of the wife of the petitioner was cancelled by the proceedings Ref.B.341/07 dated 30.08.2007 after observing the requisite formalities and that the same land has been assigned to one Smt.Kuntigalla Lakshmi Devi w/o Venkataiah of Bhumayapalli Village vide DKT 63/1470 dated 01.02.2008 and that subsequent thereto the petitioner has filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa and he is now enquiring into matter. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has not produced any material before this Court to prove that a notice was issued to the petitioner before canceling the assignment earlier granted in favour of his wife. At any rate, since the matter is under consideration before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage with the following directions: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, is directed to hear the petition filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 27.06.2008 VGSR