IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13160 of 1999 Between: 1 Beeraka Balendra Sekar S/o Vasantharayulu R/o B.C.Colony, Katepally (V), Vinjamuru (M), Nellore Dist. 2 Devana VEnkata Nageswara Rao S/o Subrahmanyam R/o B.C.Colony, Katepally (V), Vinjamuru (M), Nellore Dist. 3 Pichuka Sundaramma W/o Sambasiva Rao R/o B.C.Colony, Katepally (V), Vinjamuru (M), Nellore Dist. 4 Prudhivi Dhakshna Murthy S/o Venkaiah R/o B.C.Colony, Katepally (V), Vinjamuru (M), Nellore Dist. 5 Bandaru Subba Rao S/o Veera Nagayya R/o B.C.Colony, Katepally (V), Vinjamuru (M), Nellore Dist. 6 Beeraka Mallikamba W/o Venkateswarlu R/o B.C.Colony, Katepally (V), Vinjamuru (M), Nellore Dist. 7 Beeraka Venkateswara Rao S/o Bhavani Sankara Rao R/o B.C.Colony, Katepally (V), Vinjamuru (M), Nellore Dist. 8 Gunturu Shamalamba W/o Venkateswarlu R/o B.C.Colony, Katepally (V), Vinjamuru (M), Nellore Dist. 9 Bandla Nageswaramma W/o late Venkata Subba Rao R/o B.C.Colony, Katepally (V), Vinjamuru (M), Nellore Dist. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner Land Revenue A.P. State, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector Nellore Dist. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Vinjamuru (M), Nellore Dist. .....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 or order or direction in the nature of the Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating impugned proceedings No.BCW3/1554/92, dt: 5- 12-96 issued by the 1st respondent and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authority to decided the case of the petitioners afresh of merits which is due notice and opportunity and in accordance with law in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13160 OF 1999 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners is that though they had submitted their objections to the notice issued on 27.6.1989 asking them to show cause why the assignment granted to them should not be cancelled for the reason of their not residing in the village, the respondents had cancelled their assignment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue who initially granted stay on 26.8.1989. He, however, passed ﬁnal orders on 2.12.1991 remanding the matter for fresh disposal by the Collector. It is the case of the petitioners that, after the matter was remanded, they had engaged the services of an Advocate, that the case was subjected to repeated adjournments and that, eventually, on 6.4.1992 their counsel had informed them that the case stood adjourned to 27.4.1992. However an order was passed on 10.4.1992 cancelling their assignments, a copy of which was received by them on 22.4.1992. It is the petitioners case that the matter was decided without their being given an opportunity of being heard and that they had also ﬁled the aﬃdavit of the advocate stating that he had attended the hearing on 5.4.1992 but the authority was absent, that he waited till 5.00 p.m. and since the authority did not come to the oﬃce till 5.00 pm he had left, that on the next day when he enquired with the concerned clerk and the Section Superintendent he was informed that the case was adjourned to 27.4.1992 but, surprisingly, the authority had passed the order on 10.4.1992 a copy of which the petitioner had received on 22.4.1992. It is further stated in the said aﬃdavit that this ground was raised before the appellate authority who had also passed the order on merits dismissing the appeal, without notice to the petitioners. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondents the fact regarding an aﬃdavit having been ﬁled by the advocate, or the genuineness of the contents therein, has not been disputed. The case of the respondents is that since the order has been passed by the appellate authority on merits there was suﬃcient compliance with the requirements in law. It needs no emphasis that any order passed without giving the person aggrieved an opportunity of being heard must be held to be in violation of the rules of natural justice. Since the fact of the appellants having attended the hearing on 6.4.1992 through counsel, and the authority having been absent on that day, and the fact that when their advocate ascertained with the oﬃce on the next day he was informed that the case stood adjourned to 27.4.1992, are not in dispute. It is evident, therefore, that the order dated 10.4.1992 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The mere fact that the appellate authority has passed an order on merits would not amount to compliance with the said requirement of the petitioner being required to be given an opportunity of being heard before the original authority. The impugned order of the Collector dated 10.4.1992 is accordingly set aside. The District Collector shall put the petitioners on notice, given them an opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass an order afresh in accordance with law. With a view to ensure that the petitioners do not needlessly drag on the proceedings, it is made clear that if the petitioners either avoid receipt of notice, or fail to attend the hearing after due service, it is open to the Collector to set them ex parte and proceed to pass final orders. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. __________ 25-8-2008 asp