IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2780 of 2001 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR.M.SUDHIR KUMAR The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2780 OF 2001 O R D E R The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 06.06.1997 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District, cancelling the house site pattas allegedly granted to the petitioner in respect of Plot Nos.483 and 496, Indiranagar Slum, Shaikpet Village and the consequential assignment made under proceedings dated 09.04.1998 in favour of the fourth respondent in so far as Plot no.483, Indiranagar Slum, Shaikpet Village, is concerned. The aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition discloses as follows: The petitioner claims to have been in occupation of an extent of 100 square yards of land in the area known as “Indiranagar Slum” in Shaikpet Village for over 25 years prior to the institution of the writ petition. A reference is made to the L.G.C.No.9 of 1992 ﬁled by the Government of Andhra Pradesh with respect to the illegal occupation of the Government land by Indiranagar Slum residents and it is stated that the petitioner was Respondent No.108 in the said case. It is stated that thereafter the Government of Andhra Pradesh decided to grant pattas in favour of the poor people who were in occupation of these lands on payment of cost. The petitioner was also granted a patta in respect of 100 square yards of land in Plot No.483, Indiranagar Slum, Shaikpet Village, under Patta Certiﬁcate No.P/4806/1984, dated 12.12.1995. She claims to have remitted the amounts due towards the price of the said land. It is her case that owing to the inimical relations between herself and her daughter-in-law, the fourth respondent herein, her son being an employee in the A.P. Legislative Assembly used his inﬂuence and got the assignment in her favour cancelled vide the impugned proceedings dated 06.06.1997. She speciﬁcally claimed that she did not receive any notice prior to the issuance of the impugned proceedings. After the cancellation of her patta, it is stated that the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein, assigned Plot No.483, which had been in her occupation, to her daughter-in-law, the fourth respondent herein, by proceedings dated 09.04.1998. She assailed both these proceedings in this writ petition citing various grounds on facts, which may not be relevant for the purpose of this adjudication. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 by the Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District, stating to the eﬀect that the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad Division had issued a house site patta certiﬁcate to the petitioner in respect of Plot No.496, Indiranagar Slum, Shaikpet Village vide Lr.No.P/4806/84, dated 01.12.1995. Misrepresenting the facts, the petitioner is said to have obtained another patta in respect of Plot No.483 under proceedings bearing the same reference. It is stated that the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, had issued show-cause notice dated 03.03.1997 to the petitioner proposing cancellation of the pattas granted to her on the ground that she had misrepresented the facts and violated the conditions of assignment. It is further stated that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Shaikpet Mandal, vide his letter No.A/284/97, dated 01.04.1997 reported that the petitioner had refused to receive the show-cause notice and accordingly the same was served by aﬃxing it on the door of the petitioner’s house. It is the case of the authorities that the petitioner failed to respond to the said show cause notice and accordingly the impugned proceedings dated 06.06.1997 were issued cancelling the assignment in favour of the petitioner in respect of both the plots, viz., Plot Nos.483 and 496 of Indiranagar Slum, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad. It is further stated that as the fourth respondent was in possession of the land in Plot No.483 and fulﬁlled the conditions required for assignment in her favour, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer granted patta certificate in her favour vide proceedings dated 09.04.1998. The fourth respondent ﬁled a separate counter stating that the petitioner had no locus to question the proceedings dated 09.04.1998 granting a patta in her favour as the petitioner had nothing to do with the land covered by the said proceedings. The fourth respondent echoed the stand taken by the respondent- authorities to the eﬀect that the petitioner, having obtained a patta earlier in respect of Plot No.496, suppressed the said fact and obtained another patta in respect of Plot No.483, and accordingly the proceedings cancelling the assignment in favour of the petitioner were lawful and valid. Heard the learned counsel. Upon a direction by this Court, the learned Government Pleader for Assignment produced the records pertaining to this case. A perusal of the records discloses the following facts: A copy of the signed draft show-cause notice dated 03.03.1997 issued by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad District, is available in the ﬁle. This copy is over-written by hand and there is no fair typed copy of the said show-cause notice available in the ﬁle. A copy of the letter dated 01.04.1997 addressed by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Shaikpet Mandal to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad Division, is found which states to the eﬀect that the petitioner refused to receive the show-cause notice and hence, the same was served by aﬃxing on the door of the addressee. It is speciﬁcally stated therein that the served copy is enclosed therewith. However, no such served copy is found in the ﬁle. It appears that after the passing of the impugned proceedings dated 06.06.1997, service of the same was also eﬀected through aﬃxation, on the ground that the petitioner refused to receive the proceedings. This fact is evident from the letter of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Shaikpet Village, dated 20.06.1997 addressed to the Collector, Hyderabad District, wherein he recorded that the petitioner had refused to receive the proceeding and accordingly the same was got served by aﬃxing on the spot. There is a recital in this letter also, to the eﬀect that the served copy was enclosed therewith. This enclosed copy is available in the ﬁle and bears the endorsement in Telugu that the petitioner refused to accept service of the proceeding and therefore, the same was served through affixation on the spot. The said endorsement is made by the Village Administrative Oﬃcer and is attested by three separate witnesses. Signiﬁcantly, no such served copy was found in so far as the service of the show-cause notice is concerned. Prima facie, this fact indicates that there is some truth in the contention of the petitioner that she was not served with the show-cause notice prior to the action initiated for cancellation of the patta granted to her. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent vehemently contended that notwithstanding the non-service of the notice, as the petitioner had also been assigned a patta in respect of another land, no prejudice is caused to her by the cancellation of the patta in so far as Plot No.483 is concerned and the subsequent assignment in favour of his client. The issue as to whether the petitioner was also assigned Plot No.496 is not established on the material placed before this Court. The facts as made out by the pleadings and the record demonstrate that the petitioner was assigned patta in respect of Plot bearing No.483, Indirinagar Slum, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, and by way of the impugned proceedings dated 06.06.1997, the said patta was cancelled. It cannot be gainsaid that such an action causes great prejudice to the petitioner and the principles of natural justice require that she should be put on notice before such action is taken against her. The impugned proceedings dated 06.06.1997 therefore suﬀer from a gross violation of the rule of ‘audi alteram partem’ and are unsustainable in law. Consequently, the subsequent proceeding dated 09.04.1998 granting a patta in respect of Plot No.483, Indiranagar Slum, Shaikpet Village, in favour of the fourth respondent, being dependant upon the cancellation of the patta in favour of the petitioner, cannot stand. The impugned proceedings dated 06.06.1997 and 09.04.1998 are therefore set aside. It is open to the authorities to initiate action afresh in accordance with law, duly putting the petitioner on prior notice with regard to the action sought to be initiated against her and take an appropriate decision in the matter after hearing all the parties concerned, including the fourth respondent. The writ petition is accordingly allowed subject to the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------- P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. 31st OCTOBER, 2008 PGS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2780 of 2001 31ST OCTOBER, 2008