G. Gangaram, v. The District Collector,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3958 OF 2010 ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have filed explanation to the notice issued in Form I under Rule 3 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Rules, 2007, impugned order is passed by observing that no reply is filed by the petitioners. But, in the counter affidavit, at para-6, it is stated that the impugned orders are passed after submission of representation by the petitioner and after giving personal opportunity to the petitioners. It goes to show that the explanation filed by the petitioners was not properly considered. Even the assertion of the petitioners that their representation is not considered stands fortified.

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The 3rd respondent is to pass final orders after considering the representation of the petitioners and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Till then Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case, shall stand closed. _____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 31.10.2016 t k