The absence of notice and opportunity to be heard before passing a resumption order constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating the order's annulment.

ORDER :

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 under article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the order passed by the Tahsildar, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District, the 5th respondent herein in his proceeding D/3860/2008 dated 12.06.2008 in so far as resuming an extent of Ac.5.02 guntas of dry land comprised in Sy.No.560 situated in Mamidipally Village, Sangareddy Mandal in Medak District and the further action of the respondent in seeking to dispossess the petitioners herein from the above extent of land as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and also violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the order of the 5th respondent in his Prodgs.D/3860/2008 dated 12.06.2008 in so far as resuming an extent of Ac.5.02 Guntas of dry land comprised in Sy.No.560 situated in Mamidipally Village, Sangareddy Mandal in Medak District and further direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above extent of land …”

2. Heard Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri P. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6. During the pendency of the writ petition, sole petitioner died and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were brought on record as her legal heirs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of petitioner No.1 was an ex-serviceman. The then Tahasildar, Sanga Reddy Mandal, granted assignment patta in respect of agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.5.02 guntas in Survey No.560 situated at Mamidipally Village of Sangareddy Mandal, Medak Distrtict, in the year 1969, after following the due procedure and thereafter, he had issued Final Patta Certificate No.A5/10820/74 to him. Since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property and he dug a bore-well and obtained electricity service connection and doing agriculture by raising paddy and other crops by drawing the water through the said bore well and his name was mutated in the revenue records and he died in the year 2000. After his death, petitioner No.1 succeeded the above said property and her name was mutated in revenue records and pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in her favour.

3.1. He further submits that on 25.05.2009, respondent No.4 came to the land of petitioner No.1 and directed her not to do agriculture and trying to dispossess her from the subject property, even without issuing any notice. At that stage, petitioner No.1 had approached this Court and filed the present writ petition and this Court granted status quo on 12.10.2009 and the same is continuing. Respondent No.5 filed counter alleging that he passed resumption order on 12.06.2008 and allotted the subject land in favour of respondent No.6.

3.2. He vechmentally contended that respondent No.5, without issuing notice and opportunity to petitioner No.1, passed the impugned resumption order behind her back. The allegation made by the respondent No.5 in the counter affidavit that he had issued show-cause notice dated 20.05.2008 and petitioner No.1 was not residing in the village and due to the same, notice was affixed to a pole erected in the subject land is absolutely not correct, especially when petitioner No.1 is resided in the village in house bearing No.1-28, till her death i.e. 04.10.2013. The endorsement made in the show- cause notice that the addressee was not residing in the village and due to that the same, it was affixed to a pole in the subject land is factually incorrect and the impugned order dated 12.06.2008 passed by the respondent No.5 is gross violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to law.

3.3. He further submits that the petitioners are in p