HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.9462 OF 2001 Dt.26.8.2010 Between: Makina Rama Rao and another ..Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.9462 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking for a declaration that the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam in Rc.No.2965/99-E1, dated 20.3.2001 received by the petitioners on 8.5.2001 is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Heard both the learned counsel. The case of the 1st petitioner is that he was assigned an extent of Ac.2.06 cents in Sy.No.154/2 and Ac.1.04 cents in Sy.No.155/1, total of which Ac.3.10 cents situate at Bheemannadorapalem Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Anandapuram vide proceedings in D.R.No.342/97 dated 15.4.1988. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.154/1 of the said village by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Anandapuram vide D.R.No.341/97 dated 15.4.1988 subject to certain conditions. The D-form patta assigned in favour of the 2nd petitioner states that the 2nd petitioner is the resident of Ramavaram village. While so, the 1st respondent Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, issued a show cause notice dated 13.7.1999 in Rc.No.2965/99/E1 referring about the assignment of land in favour of the petitioners vide the aforesaid proceedings, but the petitioners have violated the conditions and that the petitioners do not belong to Bheemannadorapalem village as disclosed by them in their applications and they have submitted incorrect information for assignment of the said land and the said land is not in possession of the petitioners and one Sukhavasi Narayana Rao is in possession and enjoyment of the same on behalf of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are called upon as to why the said D-form patta should not be cancelled if no suitable explanation is filed. It is stated that the petitioners filed a detailed explanation stating that they have not suppressed anything in their applications for the assignment of the said lands and they are residents of Ramavaram Village which is adjacent to the assigned lands of Bheemannadorapalem Village and the cultivator Sukhavasi Narayana Rao is the father-in-law of the 2nd petitioner. It is stated that they were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land before the assignment and in fact they have been treated as encroachers and the respondents started collecting B-memo charges and after satisfying the genuineness of their case, D-form pattas were granted. On the said explanation, the impugned order is passed stating that the explanation offered by the assignees are examined and found that there are no valid grounds to consider their explanation. This Court is of the opinion that the said action of the 1st respondent in simply saying that the explanation is not having any valid grounds is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Board Standing Orders does not indicate that they shall be residents of the same village. The only condition prescribed in the said Board Standing Orders is that the applicants, who filed applications for grant of assignment, shall be in possession of the said lands. It is the case of the petitioners that though they are residents of Ramavaram village, which is abutting to Bheemannadorapalem village, they have been in continuous possession and cultivating the said lands. The reason for cancellation that the lands are under occupation of the benamidaras and the assignees never in occupation of the assigned lands and the D-form patta was obtained by misrepresentation is bereft of any material particulars. If the petitioners are residing in the abutting village of Ramavaram and cultivating the said land at the time of assignment, it cannot be said that they have misrepresented the fact. In fact, D-form patta discloses that the 2nd petitioner is a native of Ramavaram village. It is their specific case that both the petitioners are residents of Ramavaram village, which is abutting to Bheemannadorapalem village, and they never misrepresented in their applications. No records have been produced before this Court. The copies of the said applications also have not been filed before this Court. Admittedly, the contents of the explanation were not at all considered. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with liberty to the respondents to give a specific notice with regard to all the violations calling upon the petitioners to submit explanation and if any such explanation is submitted within the prescribed time, the explanation shall be considered and final orders shall be passed in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 26.8.2010 kpr