IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14464 of 2001 Between: 1 Madanuri Satya Raju S/o Venkata Raju R/o Srinivasa Camp, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. 2 Madanuri Muralidhar Raju S/o Venkata Raju R/o Srinivasa Camp, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. 3 Yogiraju Rajamraju S/o Subba Raju R/o Srinivasa Camp, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nizamabad District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or Direction to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings dt. 29-6-2001 in Proc. No.DWC/NZB/53/92 on the ﬁle of the ﬁrst Respondent and to declare the said proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRKRAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14464 of 2001 ORDER: Aggrieved by the cancellation of the Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcates, issued in their favour as early as on 30.01.1987, by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Nizamabad District, vide proceedings dated 29.06.2001, the present writ petition is filed. 2. While several contentions are urged by Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, including the competence of the Joint Collector to suo motu cancel the Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcates, it would suﬃce if the writ petition was to be allowed on the short ground that the impugned order was passed without putting the petitioners on notice and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would agree that no notice was issued to the petitioners nor was an opportunity of being heard given to them before the impugned order was passed. 4. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed leaving it open to the 1st respondent to put the petitioners on notice, give them an opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. Needless to state that, in case the 1st respondent initiates action for cancellation of the Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcates by issuing notice to the petitioners, it would always be open to them to raise all such contentions as are available to them in law. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 06.11.2008 v v