IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 12068 of 2001 Between: Odde Poshetty, S/o. Narsimlu, R/o. Kurmapalli Village, presently residing at Ankasapoor Village, Velpur Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nizamabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Armoor, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide No.B2/5256/95, dt. 19.3.2001 and QUASH the same by issuing a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of CERTIORARI by duly declaring the action of the respondents i.e. the action of the respondents 2 & 3 herein i.e., proceedings initiated by them i.e. issuance of show-cause notice as well as cancellation of patta certificate granted in favour of the petitioner alleging the contravention of one of the patta conditions on erroneous grounds and on mistake of certain facts is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and also gross violation of principles of law laid down while deciding the assignment cases which came up for adjudication before this Hon'ble Court . Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORDER: In the writ petition the petitioner sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings No.B2/5256/95 dated 19-03-2001 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. In the impugned proceedings the third respondent cancelled the assignment of house site patta that was made in favour of the petitioner in the proceedings No.B2/5256/95 dated 31-05-1996 in respect of plot No.2 situated in Sy.No.401/66 of Armoor village. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the minutes of the meeting held on 19-08-1995 on rehabilitation measures to be taken to the surrendered extremists a decision was taken to allot plot No.2 in Armoor village in Sy.No.401/66 and consequently the proceedings dated 31-05-1996 was issued assigning the house patta in favour of the petitioner, who is stated to be a surrendered extremist. As per the conditions of the patta, the assignee should built a house within a period of six months. As the petitioner has not built the house or atleast erected a thatched house, the assignment was sought to be cancelled. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a notice No.B2/5256/95 dated 15-01-2001 stating that the assignee should built a thatched/tiled or terrace building within a period of six months from the date of allotment, but he failed to construct the either type of house even after a lapse of four years and the same is violative of patta condition. Thereafter, the impugned proceedings have been issued canceling the patta on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the explanation in response to the notice issued to him. A counter-affidavit was filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has not constructed a house within the stipulated time and violated the very condition of the assignment. After conducting enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer vide proceedings No.B2/5256/95, dated 15-01-2001 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the house site patta should not be cancelled for not constructing a thatched/tiled or terrace building in the land assigned. The Mandal Revenue Officer sought to serve the said notice on the petitioner and it was brought to his notice that the petitioner is presently residing at Kaldurki village of Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bodhan, requesting him to serve the show cause notice on the petitioner. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bodhan, vide letter dated 07-03-2001 informed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad, that the petitioner is not residing at Kaldurki village and returned the said show cause notice. Since the whereabouts of neither the petitioner nor his legal heirs were not known, a show cause notice was affixed on the notice board at Mandal Revenue Office and Gram Panchayat on 08-03-2001 and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Armoor, passed the final orders dated 19- 03-2001 which is the impugned order cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is very much alive and he is residing at Kurnapalli village and as on the date of filing the writ petition he was residing at Anksapur village, Velpur Mandal, Nizamabad District, and he was not aware of any show cause notice issued by the respondent and he was not served with any such notice and the alleged enquiry is conducted behind the back of the petitioner, therefore, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the site in question but he could not make any construction therein for the reason that he did not have any funds for making any construction. Therefore, he submit that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and no notice is served on the petitioner and no opportunity is given to the petitioner to participate in the alleged enquiry. The impugned order as well as the counter-affidavit does not say that any notice has been served on the petitioner. At one stage in the impugned order it was mentioned that there was information that the petitioner died. The writ petition itself is filed by the petitioner who has assigned, therefore, the information stated to have been obtained by the authorities that the petitioner died appears to be contrary to the fact on record. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has not been served with the notice. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, since no notice has been issued on the petitioner before issuing the impugned proceedings though he is very much alive. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order. However, this order does not preclude the respondent from passing fresh order after issuing notice and conducting enquiry into the matter. No costs. __________________ 26th November, 2008 SKM