THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.737 OF 2006 Between : 1. M. Vidyasagar, S/o. late M.T.Raju, Plot Nol18, Balaji Nagar, Adikmet, Hyderabad and others. …... PETITIONERS And 1. The District Collector (Panchayat Raj), Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad, and another. …....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu Counsel for the respondent No.1: G.P. for PR & RD Counsel for the respondent No.2: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following. ORDER: The petitioners, who are said to be the owners of plots situated in S.Nos.27, 28, 31 to 40 of Miyapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, have filed this writ petition basically challenging the orders of the 1st respondent, viz., the District Collector (Panchayat Raj), Ranga Reddy District, in proceedings No.A4/57/2005 dated 18.07.2005 cancelling the sanctioned layout covering the said plots, as illegal. The petitioners claim that they purchased the plots situated in S.Nos.27, 28, 31 to 40 of Miyapur village from the original owners. The said plots fall within the jurisdiction of Boduppal Gram Panchayat and covered by sanctioned layouts granted by the said Gram Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioners that some of them have already constructed houses and some are awaiting for permissions from the concerned authorities. According to them, the layout was sanctioned in the year 1982 as per the Rules then existing. It appears that the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice in Roc.No.A4/57/2005 dated 02.05.2005 proposing to cancel the sanctioned layouts calling upon the petitioners to submit their explanation with connected documents, if any. It is stated that the petitioners filed explanations dated 22.05.2005. The 1st respondent, however, without considering the said explanations passed the impugned order. The petitioners have therefore filed this writ petition. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the layout was sanctioned as long back as in 1982. Ever since then, several developments have been taken place including construction of houses by the petitioners. It is therefore unjust to cancel the layout at this length of time. The learned counsel would also submit that the petitioners were not made aware that the layout was proposed to be cancelled. The show cause notice dated 2.05.2005 is bereft of details to which the petitioners could not suitably respond. He would therefore contend that the impugned order is unsustainable. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj would submit that the layout was sanctioned by the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat without observing the procedure laid down under the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002, as such the 1st respondent passed the impugned order after due notice to the petitioners. He would therefore contend that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. In the light of the rival contentions, I am not inclined to go into the facts whether the layout sanctioned in the year 1982 was validly granted and whether the first respondent could initiate action after a long lapse of time. It is however necessary to examine whether the 1st respondent has afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their explanation. It is therefore necessary to extract the show cause notice dated 2.05.2005, which reads as under. “Whereas it has been brought to the notice of the under signed that Ex-Sarpanches of Gram Panchayat Boduppal stated to have been sanctioned layout approval at Miyapur village of Gram Panchayat Boduppal jurisdiction in Sy.No.27,28, 31 to 40 without observing the procedure laid down under the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.67 PR & RD Dept., dated 26.02.2002 which is contrary to the provision of the A.P.P.R. Act, 1994. Therefore, the concern land owners mentioned in the address entry are hereby instructed to submit their explanation along with connected documents if any with them for consideration. If the explanation to show cause notice is not received within (15) days from the date of receipt of this notice the layouts stated to have been sanctioned by the Ex- Sarpanches without following rules shall be cancelled as per rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.67 PR & RD Department dated 26.02.2002 without giving any further opportunity.” A perusal of the show cause notice extracted above would disclose that the 1st respondent has not referred to any specific violation. The said show cause notice is ex-facie perfunctory. The 1st respondent has not indicated any defect or any violation committed, which was sanctioned as long back as in the year 1982. It is also not indicated how the Rules issued in 2002 could not have been followed in 1982. The authority, which proposes action, should indicate sufficient reasons, and if necessary, sufficient details on which action is proposed. The object is to provide sufficient opportunity to the concerned to put forth their explanation thereto. In the instant case, the 1st respondent has merely mentioned the provision of law which cannot be considered as descriptive enough. Further even according to the impugned order, the layouts were sanctioned by the former Sarpanches during the year 1982. That being so, the 1st respondent could have called for the records from the Gram Panchayat and verified the same. If he had found any lapse, he could have indicated the same in the show cause notice. On the other hand, it is stated that there is no recorded evidence produced by the petitioners in proof of their payment of any layout fee and the land meant to be earmarked to the Gram Panchayats. This ground for cancellation is not reflected in the show cause notice. In the aforesaid circumstances, it must be held that the petitioners were not afforded proper opportunity to put forth their explanation, therefore, impugned order being violative of the basic principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside. The 1st respondent is however at liberty to issue fresh show cause notice giving sufficient details to enable the petitioners to offer their explanation and proceed further thereto in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 15th December, 2010 Js.