LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners originally belonged to Madhya Pradesh and migrated to Yellandu village, Khammam District. In Madhya Pradesh they were categorised as Scheduled Tribes belonging to 'Bhill' community. They have migrated as agricultural coolies. On 17-10-1984, 5.00 acres of land each in S.No.549 Rompad village was assigned to the petitioners. Eversince, they are in possession of the land. They have used a part of land for purpose of cultivation and in another part of land they have constructed Tiles Industry by borrowing money from the Bank. They were granted temporary pattas. However, on 1-2-1994 show-cause notice was issued proposing to cancel patta. The petitioners filed written explanation. They were heard by the Collector who issued the show-cause notice. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 30-3-1996 cancelling the assignment in favour of the petitioners under Section 166-B of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the show-cause notice was issued on 1-2-94 and the petitioners filed explanation on 25-2-1994. The petitioners were heard by one Joint Collector while the order was passed by another Joint Collector on 30-3-1996. Therefore, the order is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice.

(3.) Initiating proceedings after the petitioners developed the land, that too after a period of ten years is in violation of not only principles of natural justice but also beyond the period of limitation and the show-cause notice is therefore liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he relied on Soni Reddy vs. Joint Collector, Medak and others; P. Mangamma vs. Women's Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.; A. Kodanda Rao vs. Govt. of A.P..