THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.4534 of 1998 DATE: 16-11-2007 Between : Musunuru Krishnaiah .. Petitioner And 1. Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Nellore., and two others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.4534 of 1998 ORDER : The writ petitioner claims to be the son of one Musunuru Nallaiah who was assigned an extent of Ac.3-08 cents situated in Sy.Nos.152/2, 154 and 140/1 B of Pellakur Village by the then Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 15-4-1961. It is stated that the possession of the land in question was delivered to his father on the date of assignment itself. His father died on 19-6-1995 and thereafter the lands continued in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner by succession. While so, the petitioner came to know that on a claim made by the mother of the 3rd respondent herein under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, ‘Estates Abolition Act’), stating that her husband by name Balrami Reddy was in possession of the land even prior to 1.7.1945 the Settlement Officer, Nellore granted a ryotwari patta by order dated 30-9-1997. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed contending inter alia that the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, without giving any notice to the petitioner, who is in actual possession of the land and in whose favour the assignment was granted by the competent authority long back, is arbitrary and illegal. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Joint Collector, Nellore in which the fact that the petitioner’s father was granted assignment on 5-3-1966 by the then Tahsildar, Gudur has not been disputed. The fact that the land in question has been in possession of the petitioner is also not disputed. It is further stated that the impugned order dated 30- 9-1997 was passed without giving any opportunity to the assignee. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, nothing has been pleaded and no other material has been placed before this Court to show that there was any notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 30-9-1997. Having regard to the undisputed fact that the impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry as provided under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30-9-1997 is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry after due notice to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent and after giving them a reasonable opportunity to putforth their version and then pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16-11-2007 gbs