THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 6652 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings in R.C.No. 8164/2004-G6 dated 17.12.2004 issued by 1st respondent – District Panchayat Officer, Guntur canceling the lease granted by Vankayalapadu Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner on 28.2.1992 and the consequential proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Edlapadu Mandal under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 18.1.2005 as arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 14383 of 2002 dated 23.4.2003. It appears, petitioner have entered into a lease agreement pertaining to agricultural land of Ac.1.50 cents, Ac.1-25 cents and Ac.1/25 cents respectively for a period of 99 years and the lease deed was executed on 20.2.1992. Since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While that being so, it appears, petitioners were sought to be evicted from the said land. When the respondents have interfered with their possession and enjoyment of the subject land, they have filed W.P. No. 14383 of 2002. The said writ petition was allowed on 23.4.2003 directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the lands leased. However, liberty was given to respondents to initiate appropriate steps in accordance with law to evict the petitioners. In spite of this, according to petitioners, respondents have made interference into the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land without following due process of law as directed by this Court in W.P. No. 14383 of 2003. Hence, this writ petition. Heard both sides. It appears, the lease of the petitioners was cancelled by proceedings dated 17.12.2004 issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur without issuing notice of any kind to the petitioners nor any such discussion was made in the entire order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the District Panchayat Officer. In view of said cancellation of lease deeds, 4th respondent – M.R.O. initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and passed impugned order dated 18.1.2005. Be that as it may, while admitting the writ petition, on 29.3.2005 status quo obtaining as on that date was directed to be maintained as to the nature and possession of the land in question. In fact, thereafter, the same was also made absolute on 16.3.2006. The fact that no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioners before passing impugned proceedings dated 17.12.2004 issued by 1st respondent – District Panchayat Officer is not in dispute. Therefore, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order dated 17.12.2004 and the same is liable to be set aside. Further, since 4th respondent passed orders dated 18.1.2005 only pursuant to the cancellation of lease deeds, the same shall also stand set aside. The impugned orders dated 17.12.2004 and 18.1.2005 are accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, respondents are directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioners as to deciding cancellation or otherwise of the lease deeds entered into between the parties and thereafter if any order of cancellation is passed by respondents after issuing notice, 4th respondent is at liberty to proceed with the matter, as per law. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 20-10-2010 MVB.