IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.26824 of 2014 BETWEEN Pathan Hidaithun Bhi and others AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners, who are seven in number, have approached this court by the present writ petition questioning the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 in Rc.No.175/2013/DT dated 04.02.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the affidavit filed, states that petitioners are landless poor persons and that each of the petitioners were granted house site plots bearing Nos.232, 220, 246, 59, 233, 286 and 307 respectively. Petitioners state that alleging that no constructions are made in the house site pattas in violation of the conditions of assignment, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notice, which is a common notice to all the assignees, requiring them to show cause within 15 days of the said notice and proposing that on account of the violation of conditions of assignment, orders of cancellation of house site patas would be passed. Petitioners, therefore, submits that since no individual notices were issued, they were not aware of the said notice and since the said assumption of respondent No.3 is factually incorrect, they seek to contest and invalidate the proceedings of respondent No.3.
4. Learned Government pleader, on instructions, states that the aforesaid land admeasuring Ac.10-00 in survey No.99/1 of Tadikonda Village was acquired under Award No.22/2001-2 dated 27.03.2002 and 295 house site pattas were issued. However, it is alleged that even after lapse of so many years, no houses were constructed by any of the assignees and the proposed action for cancellation was directed to be taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Accordingly, respondent No.3 states that he has issued common public notice as no individual assignee is residing in the village. It is stated that the said common notice was displayed in the schedule site at Gram Panchayat Office, at Mandal Parishad Development Office, at Mandal Revenue Office, and at Police Station of Tadikonda, and also published by tom tom in the village. It is further stated that no one filed objections in response to the public notice aforesaid till today and no further action was taken on the issue. It appears that the aforesaid land is under alienation by the Government for the purpose of a residential school. However, the issue regarding that appears to be pending with the Collector, Guntur.
5. It could be noticed from the above that the impugned proceeding is only a notice calling upon the assignees to submit objections, if any, to the proposal for cancellation on the ground of violation of conditions of assignment. Apparently, as petitioners may not be residing at the village, they have come up with the present writ petition after lapse of about six months from the said notice. However, since it is clear from the instructions received by the learned Government Pleader that no further action is taken after issuance of the notice, in my view, interest of justice would be served if petitioners are granted an opportunity to submit their objections to the said notice and directing respondent No.3 to consider the said objections before taking any final decision in pursuance of the said notice, dated 04.02.2014.
Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of permitting the petitioners to file objections before respondent No.3 on or before 30.09.2014 and on receipt of such explanation, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate final orders with regard to the impugned notice, referred to above, and take appropriate further action based on the said decision. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 16, 2014 Note:
Furnish copy in three days.
{B/o} LMV