SURI PRAKASHAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition challenges G.O.Ms.No.468, Dt 19-5-1993.

(2.) An extent of Ac.21.52 cents in Varini village was given on lease by the Government on 6-11-91 in favour of Sri Venkateshwara Dandigunta Varini Salt Co-operative Society Limited, for a period of 25 years. The purpose of the same was to allow the members of that Society to have salt pans and manufacture salt on the land. Only an extent of Act. 10.00 cents was actually used for salt pans and the remaining extent was lying waste at present. The petitioner herein made a complaint that the Society was not functioning, that the land was not being put to proper use and, therefore, the land should be resumed and allotted to other landless poor, such as petitioners. This complaint was enquired into by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vidavalur, as per the directions of the District Collector, Nellore, and found that the Society was not functioning at all and that the lands have been alienated by the Society to M.Srinivasulu and K.Rajaiah, both teachers, by collecting sub- lease amount of Rs. 30,000/- The District Collector then directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to take action. Thereupon, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a show cause notice, dated 21-5-1992, to the Society proposing to re-assign the lands to poor beneficiaries identified by him. There was no reply by the Society. Thereupon, he passed an order on 9-6-1992 cancelling the lease and resuming the lands to the Government. He also requested the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Nellore to form and register a new salt Society for 33 identified members of Dandigunta, Varini and Ramatheertham villages, and give possession of the lands to them. The petitioner is one of those members of the new Society, which was formed on 10-7-1992, and to whom, according to the petitioner, the lands were given and salt pans are now functioning. The 4th respondent, which had, thus, been deprived of the lease, filed a Revision Petition to the Government on 27-7-1992. On 31-7-1992 the Government sent a Telegram to maintain status quo ante, but it is stated in the impugned order that it was not implemented. Thereafter, on 12-4- 1993 instructions were given to the Mandal Revenue Officer to inform all the concerned about the hearing of case on 17-4-1993, but there is no proof of service of notice. On that day the Advocate of the 4th respondent argued the case, and, thereafter, the impugned orders were passed on 19-5-1993 setting aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 9-6-1992 as illegal and irregular.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order was made without notice to the petitioner, who was a person interested in the matter having initiated the proceedings by a complaint. It is contended that an order passed without giving adequate opportunity to the person interested is void and, therefore, it should be cancelled.