HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.11696 of 2002 DATED: .04.2010 Between: Smt. Raja Kanthalakshmi .. Petitioner And Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector (FAC) for the Joint Collector and Spl. Officer (LA) Steel Plant, Vizag and others. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.11696 of 2002 ORDER : Assailing the orders dated 09-04-2002 in Rc.No.79/99-B, passed by the 1st respondent whereby the allotment of a house site has been cancelled, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was displaced from the land situated in Sy. Nos.526/2 and 526/3 and also a house property in Sy. No. 403-1C/245 of Kanithi village, Visakhapatnam District, on account of acquisition of lands for the purpose of establishing Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. As a measure of rehabilitation, the petitioner was initially allotted a house site bearing plot No.1475-A in Vadlapudi Rehabilitation Colony. As the petitioner did not accept the plot and on her request, another plot bearing No.2213 was re-allotted which is situated in Sy. No.28/1 of Vadlapudi Rehabilitation Colony. It appears and which is apparent from the impugned order that Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority objected the allotment of plot No.2213 as the said plot is situated in Green Belt Area and sought for cancellation of allotment. In pursuance of the objections, the 1st respondent cancelled the allotment of said plot by orders in Rc.No.79/99-B, dated 09-04-2002, and in lieu of the cancellation, he allotted another plot bearing No.2193 to the petitioner. Against which, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard both the parties. 4. The impugned order is assailed, contending that it was passed without notice and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner, lost her own land due to acquisition, lost source of livelihood and became displaced; she was entitled to be rehabilitated under the rehabilitation policy on par with others who similarly became displaced and rehabilitated later. It is contended that the 1st respondent having allotted plot bearing No.2213 should not have cancelled it and deprived her of rehabilitation. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, however, contended that the cancellation of plot No.2213 was ordered on the objections raised by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and however, since the other plot No.2193 has been allotted to the petitioner, no prejudice is caused to her. 6. Apparently, the 1st respondent cancelled the allotment of plot No.2213 without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically averred in the writ petition that there was no notice nor an opportunity provided to her preceding the orders of cancellation. This fact, the 1st respondent has not traversed in the counter affidavit. It is well settled that notice is sine qua non with the principles of natural justice. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is unsustainable, and accordingly set aside. This order, however, does not preclude the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh after due notice to the petitioner. 7. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, however, submitted that on the request of the petitioner and without awaiting the result of the writ petition, the 1st respondent by orders dated 14-05-2008 in Rc.No.79/99SA, has allotted yet another plot bearing No.1487-A in Vadlapudi Rehabilitation Colony Sector-II to the petitioner. If that be so, the 1st respondent may record the same, and pass appropriate orders after notice to the petitioner. 8. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. _________________ April, 2010 kvr