V RAVINDER REDDY Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Madhusudhan Reddy, the counsel representing the writ petitioners and the Government Pleader for Assignment.

(2.) The writ petition is filed praying for a direction declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings dated -09-1996 in D.Dis No. C/3543/96, as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders.

(3.) The main grievance ventilated by Mr. Madhusudhan Reddy, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners is that the pattas which had been granted in favour of the writ petitioners, had never been cancelled and the writ petitioners were never put on notice in this regard. The impugned proceedings were made without any show-cause notice and without giving any opportunity in this regard, and hence though a remedy of appeal is provided for as against the said order, in view of the fact that there was non-affording of reasonable opportunity to explain the stand of the writ petitioners, the impugned order is bad for violation of the principles of natural justice and the same may have to be set aside and proper opportunity to be given to the writ petitioners to explain their stand in this regard.