CHIEF EXECUTIVE Vs. L.SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing.

(2.) Petitioners pray for Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. B1/82/2001 dtd. 13/11/2009 of second respondent in cancelling petitioners' assignment of land in an extent of Ac. 15.20 guntas in S.Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of Bhuttapur Village, Kadam Mandal, Adilabad District as violative of principles of natural justice and illegal.

(3.) The averments in brief are that the petitioners are all residents of Bhuttapur Village, Kadam Mandal. The petitioners belong to BC/SC. The petitioners are all landless poor persons. In the year 1999 the 4th respondent assigned to petitioners small extents of agriculture land in S.Nos. 3,4 and 5 of Bhuttapur. The petitioners claim to have brought the assigned land under cultivation. It is further averred that the 4th respondent issued pattedar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 2000 a show cause notice for cancellation of assignment was issued on the ground that the assigned land does not belong to revenue department but belongs to forest department. The petitioners submitted explanation/representation to the said show cause notice. It is on this premise a contention is developed that the petitioners were in bonafide belief that the action initiated in the year 2000 on being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioners was dropped and all of a sudden on 23/10/2009 a further notice is issued calling upon the petitioners to attend the enquiry schedule on 31/10/2009 at 11.00 AM in the Office of second respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the order impugned is passed without opportunity and that the 4th respondent cannot resile from its stand that the assigned land belongs to revenue department. The petitioners further contend that the primary occupation of petitioners is by doing agriculture and at the time of grant of assignment, the 4th respondent was satisfied about the eligibility criterion of petitioners and assignments were made. The petitioners were made to spend personal labour and money to bring the assigned land under cultivation. At this juncture cancellation of assignment is illegal and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.