THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 3529 of 2005 O R D E R: Petitioners are ten in number. Writ petition is directed against an order made by 1st respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa district in his file No. Ref.B/1629/2000 dated 28.1.2005, whereunder the order passed by 2nd respondent - Mandal Revenue Officer, Brahmamgari Mattam (B.Mattam) Mandal, Kadapa District in his file No.Ref.B-702/2000 dated 16.10.2000 holding that the petitioners have no right over the subject land and, therefore, resumption of the land does not arise, was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. According to petitioners, they are all landless poor persons and they have been allotted with an extent of Ac.0-03 cents of house site each in the month of November, 1986. They raised thatched houses and lived there for more than 10 years. After 10 years, due to heavy floods, their houses were washed away and when they were trying to reconstruct the houses, the M.R.O. tried to dispossess them without following due process of law and, therefore, they were forced to file W.P. No. 15876 of 2000. The said writ petition was disposed of on 29.8.2000 directing the respondents not to interfere with their possession of house sites without following due process of law. Thereafter, the M.R.O. issued a notice dated 27.9.2000 asking the petitioners to produce the original pattas said to have been granted in their favour. Petitioners got issued a reply notice on 11.11.10.2000 explaining the situation under which they were granted house site pattas and requesting not to cancel such pattas. However, the M.R.O. passed orders on 16.10.2000 saying that the petitioners have no right whatsoever over the land and it was never assigned to them, therefore, resumption of the land does not arise. If at all the petitioners are in possession of D-Form pattas, they are fake or forged. Therefore, petitioners were informed that they have no right over the land and not to enter into the subject land. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners have filed appeal before 1st respondent – R.D.O. The R.D.O., after looking into the order passed by 2nd respondent – M.R.O. and on his own appreciation of the facts, however, dismissed the application holding that it is evident that the appellants with mala fide intentions are making efforts to grab the vacant Government land by creating fake and fabricated D-forms, since they have nothing to loose in their efforts of grabbing Government lands. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither 2nd respondent considered the reply notice got issued by the petitioners in proper perspective nor 1st respondent – appellate authority has looked into the same impartially. Even though petitioners were ready to produce the said pattas had a detailed enquiry was conducted and sufficient opportunity given, 2nd respondent, without conducting any such enquiry, mechanically passed orders saying that the lands were not assigned in favour of petitioners, therefore, the question of resumption does not arise and that if at all the petitioners are in possession of D-Form pattas, they are fake and fabricated one. This itself would indicate the prejudice with which 2n d respondent proceeded to consider the case of the petitioners. 1st respondent – appellate authority also made a pedantic approach in accepting the observations of 2nd respondent and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. Further, 1st respondent has not issued any notice for hearing the petitioners or their counsel before passing the impugned order. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents supported the orders passed by 2nd respondent as confirmed by 1st respondent. The above facts would reveal that the petitioners have been asserting that they have been conferred with house site pattas for an extent of Ac.0-03 cents each on 4.11.1986 and they have raised thatched sheds which were washed away recently and when the 2nd respondent-M.R.O. tried to interfere with the possession of their house sites, they have filed W.P. No. 15876 of 2000 and the said writ petition was disposed of directing 2nd respondent not to interfere without following due process of law. It is not the case of 2nd respondent that he had looked into the Xerox copies of pattas produced by the petitioners and decided that the pattas issued in favour of petitioners are forged and fabricated one. Admittedly, Xerox copies of the said pattas indicate number, signature and all other details as to granting of pattas. But, 2nd respondent never stated that on verification of records, those pattas were not found anywhere. In the absence of such finding recorded by 2nd respondent, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not having patta lands against Ac.0-03 cents of land each. 1st respondent - appellate authority simply followed the reasoning given by 2nd respondent and dismissed the appeal, without hearing the petitioners. The fact that the appeal was disposed of by 1st respondent without hearing petitioners is not in dispute and the entire order passed by 1st respondent also would not indicate that any notice was issued to the petitioners or their counsel before passing the impugned order. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that unless and until the pattas issued in favour of petitioners, may be Xerox copies produced by them, are examined in detail and a reasoned order is passed after hearing the petitioners, 2nd respondent cannot record a finding that even if the petitioners are holding some pattas, they are liable to be treated as fake and fabricated one. Since 1st respondent – appellate authority has not issued any notice before passing the impugned order, the said order does not stand the scrutiny of law. For all the above reasons, the order passed by 2nd respondent dated 16.10.2000 as confirmed by 1st respondent vide order dated 28.1.2005 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to 2nd respondent – M.R.O. for fresh consideration after issuing notice to the petitioners and also calling for the originals from them, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo existing as on today shall be maintained as to possession of the petitioners over the subject land. The writ petition is allowed and remanded accordingly. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 24-12-2010. MVB.