ANKU RAMULU Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the present writ petition being aggrieved of cancellation of the allotment of the house site patta certificates relating to the Nuilding No.24 in Ekachakreswara Nagar Colony, Chakki Turfa Sivar. Bodhan Taluq, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District

(2.) Sri Serla Pandari the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had drawn the attention of the Court to the show-cause notice and would contend that beneficiary is the illitam son-in-law and his mother-in-law is having agricultural lands and other aspects were not specified in the said show-cause notice. The learned Counsel also would submit that for the purpose of cancellation, the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer also had been relied upon which was not furnished to the petitioner. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court that the authorities had not properly applied their mind and the very fact that the cyclostyle orders had been passed would go to show that these orders were made in a mechanical way. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the fact that in relation to certain of the allottees, self same Joint Collector had allowed the appeals and in this view of the matter, there is discrimination. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to all the grounds raised by him in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and placed strong reliance on a decision reported in Macherla Narayanamma v. Jt. Collector, Anantapur and others, 1995 (3) ALT 458, and also yet another decision in Smt. Udmir Gangamma v. Joint Collector, Nizimabad and others, WP No.934 of 1997 delivered by this Court, decided by this Court in the case of yet another allottee concerned virtually with the same subject-matter. The learned Counsel would conclude that in view of the fact that the report was not furnished to the petitioner and an adverse order was made cancelling the allotment, it is in violation of principles of natural justice.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue had taken this Court through the impugned order made by the first respondent dated 10-3-1994 where the reasons had been recorded in detail. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the non-compliance of the conditions had been made the ground in the show-cause notice and hence, non- mentioning of other details would not vitiate in the said notice, in any way. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the order made by the second respondent and would point out that in the light of the reasons given by both Respondents 2 arid 1 in this regard, it cannot be said that the impugned order as such suffers from any legal infirmity and the same has to be confirmed. The learned Counsel would maintain that in matters of this nature, it cannot be said that necessarily personal hearing should be given to the affected party and definitely, on those grounds, it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice.