WP/13155/2002 of B.Lokaiah, Vs The District Collector, on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set asideproceedings dated 24.06.2002 passed by respondent No.1, wherebyhe directed respondent No.2 to resume house sites assigned to thepetitioners and evict them from the house sites.Heard Sri M.P.Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for thepetitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader forAssignments.

The petitioners were granted house site pattas admeasuringAc.0.02 cents each earmarked as Plot Nos.1 and 3 respectively on28.08.1985. According to the petitioners, they have raised superstructures in the said plots and have been in actual possession andenjoyment of the same. The petitioners averred that when the formerSarpanch of the Village attempted to interfere with their possession,they filed O.S Nos.820 and 818 of 1985 on the file of learned I-Additional District Munsif, Tirupathi for permanent injunction and thatthe said suits were decreed on 01.02.1990. It is the case of thepetitioners that having lost the suit, the Sarpanch approached theExecutive Officer of the Gram Panchayat for alienation of the extent ofAc.0.80 cents of land in Survey No.298/2 in favour of Gram Panchayatfor being used as library and public market. Respondent No.1thereafter issued proceedings dated 02.01.1993 granting stay of grantof house sites to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, thepetitioners filed W.P.No.9403 of 1996. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on the short ground that the petitioners were notput on notice and were denied the opportunity of explaining their casebefore their pattas were suspended. This Court, however, gave libertyto the respondents to proceed further in the matter by making anappropriate enquiry to decide on the validity of the assignmentsgranted to the petitioners after putting the petitioners and the GramPanchayat on notice. This Court specifically directed respondent No.1to give an adequate opportunity to the petitioners for making theirrepresentation. Purporting to act on the liberty given by this Court,respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioners to appear before himon 16.03.2002 and make a representation. Accordingly, the petitionersentered their appearance through their Advocate on 15.06.2002.Thereafter, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order directingresumption of the house sites on the ground that the petitioners werenot eligible for granting house sites as they were having puccahouses.

No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents.

In their affidavit, the petitioners specifically pleaded that no noticewas given to them mentioning therein the specific grounds on whichthe house sites were proposed to be cancelled. It is also specificallypleaded that when the case was finally posted on 15.06.2002, thepetitioners’ Advocate was present and he represented that as thepetitioners were not aware of the grounds on which respondent No.1wanted to proceed with the case and that in the absence of suchgrounds being made known to the petitioners, it is not possible forthem to file a reply. The petitioners further averred that despite the saidobjection raised by their counsel, respondent No.1 did not give anynotice specifying therein the grounds on which the cancellation was proposed and passed the impugned order.

The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioners weregranted house site pattas as far back as 28.08.1985. When the pattaswere stayed initially on 02.01.1993, the petitioners filed W.P.No.9403 of 1996. While setting aside the said order, this Courtspecifically observed that the said order would not prevent respondentNo.1 from proceeding further. However, this Court has clearly held thatif such an action is initiated, the petitioners shall be put on notice. Thepurpose of issuing a notice is to enable the person, against whom theaction is proposed, to defend himself against such proposed action.That being the case, the person issuing notice should state thegrounds on which the action is proposed to be taken. In the absence ofinforming the grounds, issuance of a notice would be an emptyformality as the person who is likely to be affected by the proposedaction will be disabled from putting forth his objections effectively.Though the petitioners specifically pleaded that except issuing anotice asking them to be present before respondent No.1 on16.03.2002; no grounds have been mentioned in the notice forinitiating the action for cancellation of the pattas granted to thepetitioners more than 18 years back. Failure to indicate the grounds,on which the action was proposed for cancellation, in my consideredopinion constitutes blatant violation of the principles of natural justiceapart from failure of respondent No.1 to follow the specific directiongiven by this Court to put the petitioners on notice. Therefore, theimpugned order cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, theimpugned order is quashed. If respondent No.1 is still interested ininitiating action for cancellation of the assignment, he is permitted to doso by giving a proper notice to the petitioners indicting therein thegrounds on which the action for cancellation was proposed. The petitioners shall be permitted to submit their explanation. If suchexplanation is received by respondent No.1, he shall consider thesame and pass a reasoned order.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

Dated 31[st] December, 2009vrn

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J