IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 32686 of 1998 Between: 1 Uppaee Esupadam, S/o.late Bheemayya, Sagipadu, Kemavarapu Kota Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 Uppae David Raju, S/o.Late Bhemayya, Sagipadu, Kemavarapu Kota Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 Uppae Nagamani, W/o. Venkatesh, Gokavaram Village, West Godavari District. 4 Nunna Susheela, D/o. Late Venkatesh, Gokavaram Village, West Godavari District. 5 M.Rani, D/o.Late Venkatesh, Veeruchetti Gudeem, Kemavarapu Kota Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamavarapur Kota Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 The Village Administrative Officer, Sagipadu Village, Kemavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari 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 issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of th respondent No. 2 in his proceedings Roc.No. 1629/96(H) dt. 28-10- 96, cancelling " D " from patta granted in favour of the late Bheemayya for an extent of Ac. 3-40 cents in S.No. 1322/9 and 1322/5 of Thedikalapudi Village, Kemaravapukota, Mandal, West Godavari District Without giving notice of opportunity and Without Conducting enquiry is illegal, arbitrary opposed to the principles of Natural Justice and Contrary to law as well as assignment rules and conditions of "D" patta and pass. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.ADINARAYANA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.32686 of 1998 ORDER: This writ petition questions the order of cancellation of D-Form patta, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Eluru, respondent No.2 herein, in Roc.No.1629/96 (H), dated 28-10- 1996. 2. The case of the petitioners is that late Bheemayya, who is the father of the petitioners 1 and 2, father-in-law of 3rd petitioner, and grandfather of petitioners 4 and 5, was granted D-Form patta with respect to Ac.3.40 cents of land in Sy.No.1322/5/9 situated at Sagipadu village, h/o.Tadikalapudi of Kamavarapu Kota Mandal, West Godavari District. The petitioners 1 and 2, sons of late Bheemayya, were also granted D-Form patta Ac.2.50 cents each. The grant of D-Form patta is undoubtedly heritable but not transferable. But the R.D.O. passed the impugned order cancelling the patta granted to the 1st and 2nd petitioners allegedly on the ground that his sons were already granted pattas for Ac.2.50 cents. each, but the impugned order does not show that the same was preceded by any notice or hearing to the affected parties. 3. The counter affidavit is filed on behalf of R-1 to R-3. In the counter, in paragraph-2, it is stated that notice prior to cancellation was issued to late Bheemayya but the connected correspondence is not available in the official records. 4. If the records are not available, it is obvious that the allegation that notice was issued to late Bheemayya earlier is not based on any official record and as such the said contention is liable to be rejected. It is therefore clear and apparent that the impugned order of cancellation is passed without notice and without hearing late Bheemayya in his lifetime and later his legal heirs. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside on the said ground. 5. The 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, however, is at liberty to issue fresh notice to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of late Bheemayya, consider their objections and pass appropriate reasoned order with respect to the said assignment made to late Bheemayya. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is needless to mention that the impugned order was suspended on 25-04-1998 by this Court while admitting the writ petition. The said suspension shall continue to operate till the respondent No.2 hears and dispose of the matter afresh as directed above. No costs. ________________ 26-11-2008 kvr