THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.13155 OF 2002 Dated 31st December, 2009 Between: B.Lokaiah and another …Petitioners And The District Collector, Chittoor and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners :Sri M.P.Chandra Mouli Counsel for the respondents :Assistant Government Pleader for Assignments The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 24.06.2002 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he directed respondent No.2 to resume house sites assigned to the petitioners and evict them from the house sites. Heard Sri M.P.Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignments. The petitioners were granted house site pattas admeasuring Ac.0.02 cents each earmarked as Plot Nos.1 and 3 respectively on 28.08.1985. According to the petitioners, they have raised super structures in the said plots and have been in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners averred that when the former Sarpanch of the Village attempted to interfere with their possession, they filed O.S Nos.820 and 818 of 1985 on the file of learned I- Additional District Munsif, Tirupathi for permanent injunction and that the said suits were decreed on 01.02.1990. It is the case of the petitioners that having lost the suit, the Sarpanch approached the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat for alienation of the extent of Ac.0.80 cents of land in Survey No.298/2 in favour of Gram Panchayat for being used as library and public market. Respondent No.1 thereafter issued proceedings dated 02.01.1993 granting stay of grant of house sites to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.9403 of 1996. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on the short ground that the petitioners were not put on notice and were denied the opportunity of explaining their case before their pattas were suspended. This Court, however, gave liberty to the respondents to proceed further in the matter by making an appropriate enquiry to decide on the validity of the assignments granted to the petitioners after putting the petitioners and the Gram Panchayat on notice. This Court specifically directed respondent No.1 to give an adequate opportunity to the petitioners for making their representation. Purporting to act on the liberty given by this Court, respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioners to appear before him on 16.03.2002 and make a representation. Accordingly, the petitioners entered their appearance through their Advocate on 15.06.2002. Thereafter, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order directing resumption of the house sites on the ground that the petitioners were not eligible for granting house sites as they were having pucca houses. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. In their affidavit, the petitioners specifically pleaded that no notice was given to them mentioning therein the specific grounds on which the house sites were proposed to be cancelled. It is also specifically pleaded that when the case was finally posted on 15.06.2002, the petitioners’ Advocate was present and he represented that as the petitioners were not aware of the grounds on which respondent No.1 wanted to proceed with the case and that in the absence of such grounds being made known to the petitioners, it is not possible for them to file a reply. The petitioners further averred that despite the said objection raised by their counsel, respondent No.1 did not give any notice specifying therein the grounds on which the cancellation was proposed and passed the impugned order. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioners were granted house site pattas as far back as 28.08.1985. When the pattas were stayed initially on 02.01.1993, the petitioners filed W.P. No.9403 of 1996. While setting aside the said order, this Court specifically observed that the said order would not prevent respondent No.1 from proceeding further. However, this Court has clearly held that if such an action is initiated, the petitioners shall be put on notice. The purpose of issuing a notice is to enable the person, against whom the action is proposed, to defend himself against such proposed action. That being the case, the person issuing notice should state the grounds on which the action is proposed to be taken. In the absence of informing the grounds, issuance of a notice would be an empty formality as the person who is likely to be affected by the proposed action will be disabled from putting forth his objections effectively. Though the petitioners specifically pleaded that except issuing a notice asking them to be present before respondent No.1 on 16.03.2002; no grounds have been mentioned in the notice for initiating the action for cancellation of the pattas granted to the petitioners more than 18 years back. Failure to indicate the grounds, on which the action was proposed for cancellation, in my considered opinion constitutes blatant violation of the principles of natural justice apart from failure of respondent No.1 to follow the specific direction given by this Court to put the petitioners on notice. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. If respondent No.1 is still interested in initiating action for cancellation of the assignment, he is permitted to do so by giving a proper notice to the petitioners indicting therein the grounds on which the action for cancellation was proposed. The petitioners shall be permitted to submit their explanation. If such explanation is received by respondent No.1, he shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 31st December, 2009 vrn