THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11940 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners were assigned Ac.0.38 cents each in different bits of Survey No.694 of Epurupalem Village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. The said land was surrendered by a declarant under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’). The Tahsildar, Chirala, 3rd respondent herein issued show cause notices dated 15.12.2007 alleging that the petitioners have not brought the land under cultivation and on the other had, have alienated the same in favour of the third parties. They were required to explain as to why the assignment in their favour shall not be cancelled and the land be not resumed to Government. The petitioners submitted explanations denying the allegations. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, 2nd respondent herein, passed a common order dated 29.02.2008 directing cancellation of pattas granted in favour of 45 persons. In addition to repeating the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice, the 2nd respondent stated that the petitioners failed to pay the market value fixed by the Government. Ultimately, he directed resumption of land under Section 14(5) of the Act. The revision filed by the petitioners to the Joint Collector, Prakasam District, 1st respondent herein was dismissed on 14.05.2008. Hence, this writ petition. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, a counter affidavit is filed, stating that the petitioners were found to have violated the conditions of assignment and in that view of the matter, the land was resumed. The impleaded parties have also filed a counter affidavit, stating that the land was resumed to Government in accordance with law and that they have been assigned the house site pattas. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned counsel for the impleaded parties. In the show cause notice issued to the petitioners the allegation was that they have not brought the land under cultivation and that they have alienated the same in favour of third parties. Except that a bald allegation was made, it was not even mentioned that the land was sold in favour of any particular individual. In their explanation, the petitioners flatly denied the allegation. Clearly they have stated that the land is being cultivated by them personally and that they have not alienated the same in favour of third parties. This plea could have been rejected, if only there existed valid material, which must be in the form of transaction of sale etc. In the order dated 29.02.2008, not only such a finding was not recorded but also reference was made to an additional factor viz., non-payment of market value. The whole exercise lacks objectivity. When it is alleged that the petitioners have alienated the land, specific reference ought to have been made to the person, in whose favour, the land was transferred. Hence, the matter deserves to be considered afresh by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, insofar as they relate to the petitioners, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal, duly referring to the individual explanations submitted by the petitioners. As regards the assignment of house sties said to have been made in favour of the impleaded parties, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained and that will be subject to the fresh order, that may be passed by the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 17.03.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11940 of 2008 Date: 17.03.2009 JSU