THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.24337 OF 2005 DATED:17.11.2005 Between: Katterapalli Subbi Reddy and another …Petitioners And The Mandal Revenue Officer Gopavaram Mandal, Gopavaram Kadapa District …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.24337 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioner’s mother was assigned agricultural dry land in S.No.1940 admeasuring Acs.3.80 of Gopavaram Village by proceedings dt.23.11.1978. The petitioners allegedly contravened the conditions of D.K.T. patta. On 23.12.2004 the Panchayat Secretary, Bethayapalli, sent a report to the respondent alleging that assignees have not brought the land under cultivation from the date of assignment. Therefore, after conducting necessary enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer, by proceedings dt.26.3.2005 cancelled the assignment and ordered resumption of the land to the Government. Though the proceedings were issued on 26.3.2005, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing present Writ Petition after lapse of about eight months. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri L.J.Veera Reddy submits that the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners and therefore it is violative of principles of natural justice. Secondly, he would urge that the Mandal Revenue Officer has not at all applied his mind before issuing order canceling pattas granted about thirty years ago. Lastly he vehemently contends that the Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled the assignment due to extraneous considerations. In support of the said contention, he relied on the letter addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Inspector of Police, Badvel, requesting the latter not to give any protection to the petitioners in view of cancellation of assignment. The matter was initially listed before this Court for preliminary hearing on 15.11.2005. At the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), the matter was adjourned to enable the Assistant Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter. Today, learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced Xerox copies of the notices issued to petitioners, which would show that as the petitioners were not available in the village, the notices were affixed to a pole near the land. Therefore, the learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that there is sufficient compliance with the rule of natural justice and that the petitioners never brought the land into cultivation. He would therefore urge that the impugned order is justified. He also submits that there is effective, efficacious alternative remedy under paragraph (15) of Board Standing Order 15 by way of appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area, and being question of fact the petitioners can avail the remedy. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions strenuously for sometime, having regard to the availability of effective alternative remedy, he seeks liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to prefer appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when such appeal is filed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the evidence that may be produced by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months thereafter. For a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondent shall not assign the land to other third parties, if the same is not already assigned. The Writ Petition with the above observations and directions is accordingly disposed of. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17.11.2005 bnr Note:1. CC by 21.11.2005. 2. Office to issue copy of the order to Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District. (B.O) bnr