Cancellation of allotment of land under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 can only be made if the allottee has violated the conditions of allotment and after giving the allottee an opportunity to contest the allegations against him.

( 1 ) THE land which had vested with the Government as surplus land under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and had been settled with the petitioner to the extent of Ac. 4-92 cents in S. No. 230/2 in Krishnapuram village having been cancelled by the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional officer, Anantapur in proceedings Rc. No. 4049 /85 dated 18 /31-3-1986, and the order having been confirmed in appeal by the 1st respondent, the Joint collector, Anantapur on 30-6-1988 the petitioner has approached this court for relief. The assignment in favour of the petitioner had been made on 18-10-1982 and it is her case that she had entered into possession and was cultivating the land. According to the assignment made under Rule 10 of the A. P. Land reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974,here in after referred to as "the Rules", the price of the land is to be paid in fifteen equal instalments. The petitioner was paying the instalments but one Ameya Naik made a petition of the land having been unlawfully allotted to the petitioner as not she but himself (Amey a Naik) who was in possession of the land. The notice of respondent No. 2 cited three grounds for cancellation, the first that the petitioner had not cultivated the land; the second she had alienated the land to one Mala subbarayudu and that third she was not residing in the village. The petitioner showed cause denying all the three allegations. The Revenue Divisional Officer in passing the order held both the Petitioner and Ameya Naik, the predecessor- in-interest of respondents 4 to 6, as being ineligible to be allotted the land and cancelled the allotment.

( 2 ) BEFORE the case as advanced by the petitioner is taken up certain mistakes occurring in the records of the case are necessary to be clarified. The petitioner came with the case that for cancellation of the allotment the competentauthority to issue the notice to show-cause was the Revenue Divisional Officer but in fact the notice was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, respondent No. 3. She also filed a copy of the order passed by the 2nd respondent as having been passed on 18-8-1985. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it has been stated that notice to show-cause was npt issued by the Mandal Revenue officer but by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 16-11-1985 and that the petitioner also submitted explanation to it on 3-12-1985. The counter-affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 6 also shows the show-cause notice to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The learned Government Pleader has produced the records relating to the case which reveal that the notice in fact was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and not by the Mandal Revenue officer. However so far as the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is concerned, it is surprising that the record does not contain the original order passed by him but only a xerox copy of it and shows it to have been typed on 18-8-1985 but the signature on it appears to be on31-3-1986. The date 18-8-1985 seems to be mistake since the order makes reference to four documents of which the documents 1,2 and 4 are respectively dated 19-2-1986,3-12-1985 and 16-11-1985 all of which are subsequent to 18-8-1985. In fact the appeal memo of the petitioner before the Joint Collector also shows the impugned order as dated 18-3-1986 and the appeal it self to have been presented on 28-4-1986. It is the submission of the learned Government pleader that the order was typed on 18-3-1986 but it was signed on 31-3-1986. But 18-3-1986 does not appear anywhere as the date on which the order was typed and such fact is also incapable of being ascertained because the original order is absent from the records. However the learned counsel for both sides agreed that the contents of the order filed as the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Offic