THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19116 OF 2002 Dated: 01.12.2011 Between : Konatala Nooka Mahalaxmi Naidu and 3 others … Petitioners And Mandal Revenue Officer and 4 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19116 OF 2002 O R D E R: The writ petitioners claim to be landless poor persons. It is stated that they were assigned small extents of land situated in different survey numbers of Ugginipalem Village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and D-form pattas were issued in their favour during the year 1984. All of them made the respective lands assigned to them fit for cultivation and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the 1st respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer by proceedings dated 23.06.2002 cancelled the D-form pattas issued to the petitioners alleging that on inspection it was found that the petitioners had purchased the lands from the original pattadars and obtained D-form pattas illegally. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The impugned order is assailed primarily on the ground that there was no prior notice to the petitioners to make their representation against the proposed action and that no enquiry as provided under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, the Act) and the Rules made thereunder was held before passing the said order. Denying the allegation that they had purchased the lands in question from the persons whose names were mentioned in the impugned order, it is contended that they are the original assignees and the lands were assigned to them by the then Mandal Revenue Officer on being satisfied that they are the landless poor persons. This Court while issuing Rule Nisi, by order dated 30.09.2002 in WPMP.No.24037 of 2002 granted interim suspension of the impugned notice and the said order continued to be in operation all through. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, though it is contended that despite notice the petitioners failed to attend the enquiry, no material could be placed before this Court to establish the same. It is also relevant to note that the impugned order did not refer to any such notice stated to have been issued to the petitioners. Even the counter-affidavit discloses that an open enquiry was conducted in the village which cannot be held to be in accordance with the procedure provided under the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is the impugned order which was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of holding that the impugned order shall not be given effect to. The petitioners are hereby permitted to submit their explanation treating the impugned proceedings dated 23.06.2002 as a show-cause notice within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, it is open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 01.12.2011 Ivd/gbs