( 1 ) HEARD Sri D. V. Seetharama Murthy, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for assignments.

( 2 ) THE writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in r. C. A. No. 334/97 dated 5-11-1997 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and also praying for appropriate relief.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: the husband of the writ petitioner applied for assignment of land as landless poor person and the Tahsildar, visakhapatnam assigned the land measuring Ac. 3. 54 cents in S. No. 55/1 of rishikonda village on 25-12-1978 and consequent upon the said assignment the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner and her other family members brought the land under cultivation spending huge amount raising cashew and mango plants and thus the lands assigned were brought under cultivation within three years under condition No. 2 of the orders of assignment and the revenue authorities also issued pass books in the name of the husband of the petitioner in the year 1981. It is further stated that respondent No. 3 herein initiated action in the year 1987 proposing to cancel the said, assignment and questioning the same W. P. 11759/87 was filed and stay of dispossession was obtained. However, the writ petition was disposed of by orders dated 12-12-1989 directing the respondents to provide an opportunity to the assignees in case any action is proposed against the land in question. It is further stated that the husband of the writ petitioner fell sick due to failure of kidney and he was hospitalised for about 45 days and subsequently on 29-8-1989 he underwent operation of kidney transplantation at Appollo hospital at madras and he was hospitalised for 170 days and he was again operated in the year 1990 and thus the family incurred debt to a tune of about Rs. 4 lakhs. It is further stated that the late husband of the petitioner submitted representation to Government of andhra Pradesh requesting for grant of permission to alienate the said assigned land so as to enable him to clear the debts and the District Collector, Visakhapatnam called for reports of 3rd and 2 and 3 respondents on personal inspection of the lands and accordingly respondents 2 and 3 had submitted reports on 1-11-1991 and 28-10-1991 recommending for grant of permission to the husband of the writ petitioner for alienating the land. It is stated that R-2 also caused enquiry into the illness of husband of the writ petitioner and the debt incurred and submitted a report confirming the same. It is also stated that the District Collector - 1st respondent herein by his proceedings in R. C. CA. No. 10610/91/ a10 dated 16-11-1991 recommended to the government to grant permission for alienating the land. However, while the said representation of the husband of the writ petitioner is pending in the Government, he died on 5-7-1994 leaving behind the writ petitioner and three children.

( 4 ) WHILE the matters stood thus, the petitioner received notice from respondent no. 3 dated 16-6-1997 signed on 27-6-1997 directing her to show cause why the assignment should not be cancelled. But, however, the said notice is purported to have been issued in view of the orders of this Court in W. P. 11759/87. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent had issued the said notice after a lapse of 7 years 6 months. The petitioner had submitted explanation on 16-6-1997 informing all the facts and also taking a stand that they had never violated any of the conditions of the d-Form patta. Several other factual details relating to the family also had been narrated and explained in the said explanation. The 3rd respondent passed final orders in r. C. CA. NO. 334/97 H. D. T. dated 5-11-1997 cancelling the said assignment and aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition is filed.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 had filed counter- affidavit narrating the brief history of the case and had taken a s