Cancellation of land assignments without due process violates constitutional rights and principles of natural justice.

The Court made the following Common Order:

As the issues raised in the present Writ Petitions relate to the same parcel of land and raise a similar question of fact and law, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order.

2. The petitioners, in all these cases, are persons to whom lands had been assigned, by way of DKT pattas in various survey numbers of Inagalur Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District. These assignments were done in and around the year 1999.

3. The petitioners in all these cases, who had been assigned lands, have approached this Court, with the contention that the respondent authorities have forcefully tried to evict the petitioners from these lands in order to hand over the same to Ms. APIIC. The petitioners contend that they are still in possession of these lands and their possession is protected by the Interlocutory Orders passed by this Court.

4. The respondent authorities, in their counter affidavits, submit that the assignment of lands, made to the petitioners herein, was cancelled and the lands were resumed in the years 2010 and 2014 itself. This resumption is said to have been made on the ground that the petitioners had not brought the lands into cultivation within the first three years of assignment and violation of this requirement, entitles the respondent Authorities to resume the lands.

5. The learned counsels for the petitioners, on the other hand, contend that none of the petitioners have received any kind of notice regarding the alleged resumption of land and that the petitioners continue to remain in possession of the lands and their possession of agricultural activities over their lands is reflected in the revenue records in the form of Adangals and that the R.O.R. Records show that the petitioners continue to be the owners of the land even in the years 2017-18 as well as 2020-21 in some cases.

6. The learned counsels for the petitioners herein have also produced the said revenue records to show that the authorities continue to recognize the petitioners herein as owners of the land which had been assigned to them.

7. The counter affidavits filed by the respondent authorities’ state that notices had been issued to the petitioners calling upon them to show- cause why the lands should not be resumed on the ground of non-cultivation of the lands within the first three years of resumption and that the petitioners did not offer any explanation after receipt of these notices. The respondent authorities also state that the orders were served on the petitioners by affixture of the same on the land of the petitioners.

8. The learned counsels for the petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court to some of the copies of the notices which have been filed along with the counter affidavits. The copies of the notices in W.P.No.1326 of 2021 can be taken up as one such example. A perusal of these notices would show that the notice is on one sheet and the acknowledgment of these notices is on a blank sheet, which is attached to this notice. The petitioner, in W.P.No.1326 of 2021, contends that she had been approached, in the year 2019, with the offer of acquisition of the land and payment of compensation. At that stage, her signature was taken on a blank sheet and the same is now pressed into service to claim that she has acknowledged the receipt of this notice in the year 2010.

9. The manner in which the signature is affixed on a blank sheet and the said blank sheet is attached to the notice raises any amount of doubt a