ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“......to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent in his Ref. B/812/2008 dated 08.12.2008 in so far as S. No. 21, 5 and 3 is concerned canceling the DKT Assignment bearing No. 154/1403, dated 04.05.94, No. 153/1403, dated 04.05.94 and No. 252/93, dated 14.05.93 of the petitioners’ respective land of Ac. 1.40 cents in Sy. No. 142/7 and Ac. 1.40 cents in Sy. No. 142/7 and Ac. 2.14 cents in Sy. No. 139 of Kamakunta village, B. Koduru Mandal of Kadapa District even without issuing notice after 14 and 15 years as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, mala-fide, misuse of official power, without jurisdiction, against principles of natural justice and against BSO 15, Para 18 and consequently set aside the order passed by the 1 respondent in his Ref.B/812/2008, dated 08.12.2008 in so far as the petitioners assignment is concerned and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. This Court has heard Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

3. Sri Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners are claiming rights in the property by virtue of the assignment of land in their favour. He points out that the first petitioner was granted a DKT Patta in May, 1994 for Ac. 1.40 cents of land in Sy. No. 142/7. The second petitioner was granted a patta in May, 1994 for an extent of Ac. 1.40 cents in Sy. No. 142/7 and the third petitioner’s mother L.Veeramma was granted a patta in May 1993 for Ac. 2.14 cents in Sy. No. 139 of Kamakunta Village, B.Koduru Mandal of Kadapa District. According to the petitioners, the land was in cultivation. The mother of the third petitioner died in December, 2005 and thereafter the third petitioner succeeded to the property assigned. The first petitioner has also been given pattadar passbook after due enquiry before the writ petition is filed. The petitioners came to realize that the pattas granted to them were cancelled in December, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that before the impugned order was passed, no notice was given to the petitioners nor was any enquiry conducted before cancelling the patta. It is also pointed out that the pattas granted in 1993 and 1994 were purportedly cancelled in 2008 and this is contrary to the settled law on the subject which held that the patta should be cancelled within three years. It is also pointed out that the third petitioner's mother died in 2005 as can be seen from the death certificate filed, but the order passed in 2008 states that she was ‘alive’ which clearly shows that there is non-application of mind. Learned counsel also points out that the grounds for cancellation of patta as can be seen from the copy of the impugned order is that the petitioners are not in possession of the property and are residents of different villages. However, in the counter affidavit filed, improvements are brought in and different reasons are given for the cancellation. Learned counsel relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the A.P. High Court reported in Peela Pothi Naidu and Others vs. State of A.P. Irrigation and CAD Department and Others, MANU/AP/0276/2005 and in particular Para 43 and other paragraphs of this judgment, wherein the Bench considered the earlier Constitutional Bench judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh vs. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 2 SCR 272 and held that subsequent improvements in the counter cannot be considered and the impugned order must be judged on the basis of the reasons as they existed in the original/impugned order only. Therefore, he submits that the reasons mentioned in the counter cannot be considered to be valid.

4. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand argues at length and in line with wh