LAWS(APH)-2023-10-69

THANNERU RAMANJANEYULU Vs. LANCE NAIK KORRAPATI KISHORE KUMAR

Decided On October 17, 2023
Thanneru Ramanjaneyulu Appellant
V/S
Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dtd. 23/3/2022 in WP No. 19079 of 2017.

(2.) The petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein was allotted a piece of land measuring Acs.3.43 cents in different survey numbers in Konanki Village, Prakasam District vide order dtd. 16/6/2011. The name of the petitioner was entered into record of rights and pattadar passbook and title deed were also issued in his favour. However, based upon certain complaints written by Shaik Mehboob Basha an Advocate, to the Joint Collector, Prakasam District exercised revisional powers conferred under BSO 15(18)(1) and passed an order dtd. 2/5/2017, cancelling the assignment granted to the petitioner. The main ground on which the Joint Collector, Prakasam District passed the order impugned in the writ petition was that the assignment was made without the approval of the assignment committee which was thus not in accordance with law.

(3.) The petitioner/respondent No.1 herein challenged the order impugned passed by the Joint Collector, Prakasam District in Writ Petition No. 19079 of 2017. It was allowed by virtue of judgment and order impugned wherein it was held that the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice served upon the petitioner pertained to ineligibility of the petitioner for grant of Patta, whereas, the order passed by respondent No.3 in writ petition contained different grounds, which was impermissible in the light of the ration of judgments of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951:INSC:52 : AIR 1952 SC 16; Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, 1977:INSC:227 : (1978) 1 SCC 405 and in Dipak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others, 2014:INSC:48 : (2014) 3 SCC 502. It was also held that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the order impugned on grounds different than the once contained in the notice issued earlier.