THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25833 of 2009 Date:21.01.2010 Between: Pilla Sankara Rao . ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and another. ....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25833 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the endorsement dated 26.07.2008 in RC No.391/2004/A7/Zone-V/Revenue cancelling the assessment in the name of the petitioner in respect of house bearing No.27-1-246 situated at Gajuwaka Municipality, in the property assessment register of Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation (GVMC), first respondent herein, as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the first respondent Corporation to restore the assessment in the name of the petitioner. The dispute relates to the assessment of ownership in respect of the house in question in the records of GVMC. As the name of the petitioner was recorded as the owner in respect of the house in question in the property assessment register maintained by GVMC, the second respondent herein, earlier, filed W.P.No.2277 of 2006 questioning the action of GVMC in not taking action for cancellation of the same. Inasmuch as the Gajuwaka Municipality merged with GVMC, this Court, by order dated 11.06.2008, disposed of the said writ petition permitting the second respondent to make a fresh representation before GVMC and further directing that when such representation is filed, the first respondent Corporation shall consider the same by passing appropriate orders. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing prior notice to him, he was communicated with the endorsement dated 26.07.2008 cancelling the assessment in his name in respect of the house in question in the records of GVMC and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Though a counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent, on instructions, Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned standing counsel for GVMC, fairly conceded that the petitioner was not put on notice before issuing cancellation proceedings. Even the learned counsel for the second respondent does not deny this allegation of the petitioner, however, he pleads that the very assessment in favour of the petitioner was illegal and as such it was rightly cancelled. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner was not given notice before issuing cancellation proceedings, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by quashing the endorsement dated 26.07.2008 giving liberty to the second respondent to make a fresh representation in this regard within a period of four weeks from today. If such representation is filed, the first respondent shall consider the same on its own merits and pass final orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st January, 2010 GHN