Petitioner challenges Ext.P12 order resuming his land having an extent of 7 cents, which was allotted in his favour as per Ext.P1 in the year 1993. Show cause notice was issued to him in terms of Ext.P7 on 24.10.2009, inter alia, stating that the land was kept idle and no activity has been done in respect of land in terms with the allotment and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show cause why the allotment should not be cancelled. Pursuant to the same, after hearing the petitioner, Ext.P12 order came to be passed. 2. Petitioner, inter alia, challenges Ext.P12 stating that the petitioner was functioning the unit. This Court had issued an Advocate Commissioner to verify the unit, and he had filed a report on 12.04.2010, inter alia, stating that the machineries appears to be old and the unit is functioning properly. It is also reported that based on available materials, it was clear that the unit was regularly functioning since 2007.
W.P.C.No.1094 OF 2010 2
3. The respondents, however, contends that Et.P7 was issued based on the report of a Vigilance enquiry. The said findings cannot be the basis of Ext.P7. The question whether the unit was functioned is a question of fact, which is now confirmed by the Advocate Commissioner's report.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid findings by the Advocate Commissioner, there cannot be any dispute on the factual situation. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for Ext.P12 and the same is liable to be quashed.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P12 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE