( 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. Ever since, 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 ofandhra 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 v. Joint Collector, Medak and others, 1986 (1) ALT 33 (NRC), P. Mangamma v. Women s Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. , 1995 (3) ALT 330, A. Kodanda Rao v. Govl of A. P. , 1981 (2) ALT 158.

( 4 ) WHILE the Counsel for the respondents contended that the assignment was made on the basis of the representation that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe while actually they do not belong to Scheduled Tribe community and therefore, it is open to the respondents to cancel the assignment on the ground that the original assignment was made on the basis of misrepresentation. Therefore, no period of limitation is applicable. As and when the respondents came to know of the misrepresentation, it is open to them to cancel the assignment and the limitation starts running from the date on which they came to know of the misrepresentation.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents also contended that since the show-cause notice was issued by one Joint Collector and the matter was heard by the same Joint Collector and the orders were passed by different Joint Collector the matter has to be remanded for reconsideration after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners.

( 6 ) IT is not disputed that the show-cause notice was issued by a joint Collector and arguments were heard by the same Joint Collector and the order was passed by a different Joint Collector. It is now well settled that if one person hears and another decides then the personal hearing becomes an empty formality. In this context the observations made in G. Nageswara Rao v. A. P. S. R. T. C. Corporation, AIR 1959 SC 308 are relevant which reads as follows : "personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned arguments to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore, hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure. "therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. On this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be allowed. However