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. 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 what is stated in the counter affidavit. He points out that the DKT pattas issued in favour of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the 3rd petitioner’s mother are fake and fabricated. It is also pointed out that by misleading the Revenue Authorities, petitioner Nos. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand argues at length and in line with what is stated in the counter affidavit. He points out that the DKT pattas issued in favour of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the 3rd petitioner’s mother are fake and fabricated. It is also pointed out that by misleading the Revenue Authorities, petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have incorporated their names in the revenue records. Thereafter, it is submitted that after clarifying all the revenue records including classification of land as ‘gayalu’ the cancellation was affected. It is also submitted that the mother of the third petitioner was not assigned the land at all. Therefore, learned Government Pleader submits that the cancellation of the assignment as can be seen from the impugned order is correct. 5. This Court after examining the matter notices that the petitioners have come on record and stated very clearly that no notice was issued to them before the impugned order was passed. This is stated in Para 4 of the writ affidavit. A reading of the counter does not disclose that a show Cause Notice was in fact issued to the writ petitioners or that the petitioners were heard. Even the impugned order does not categorically state when the show Cause Notice was issued to the three particular petitioners, who are before this Court. There is merely a reference to a show Cause Notice dated 30.07.2008. Details of the service of the said notice are however not clearly mentioned in the impugned order. It is also stated that notice was affected by substituted service: how and when this was done is also not clearly spelt out. The details of the alleged substituted service are also not clearly spelt out in the counter affidavit. Hence, it can be concluded that the petitioners were not served with a prior notice. 6. It is also noticed that a plea is now raised that the pattas issued to the petitioners are fake and fabricated. When and how this was discovered is not spelt out. The counter was filed in 2022 while the impugned order was passed in the year 2008. It is not clear how the pattas are fake. It is also not clearly mentioned how the respondents came to the conclusion that the pattas are fabricated. These are matters which have to be pleaded clearly and categorically. The counter was filed in 2022 while the impugned order was passed in the year 2008. It is not clear how the pattas are fake. It is also not clearly mentioned how the respondents came to the conclusion that the pattas are fabricated. These are matters which have to be pleaded clearly and categorically. Unless and until the pleading and proof is clear, the plea of fabrication or fake pattas cannot be countenanced. In the year 2022, the Tahsildar is stating that the pattas issued in 2008 are fabricated. On what basis and on what records she came to this conclusion is not borne out by the record. If the said pattas are fake or fabricated, a duty was cast upon the State to explain to this Court as to how these pattas are fake or fabricated. Whether the petitioners alone or petitioners in conjunction with the revenue authorities secured/procured the fake and fabricated records should be categorically established. In the absence of any such pleading or proof, this Court cannot accept the contention that the pattas are fake or fabricated. A plea of fake documents/fabrication raised decades after the documents are issued must be pleaded with great certainty and clarity. Discovery of the fraud; details of the fraud; the parties to the fraud; the action taken pursuant to the discovery of the fraud against all the players/people involved must be pleaded and proved. In the absence of such details this plea cannot be accepted. 7. Lastly, in view of the settle law including the Constitution Bench decision of Mohinder Singh (supra), the originally impugned order and its contents alone are to be seen to test the veracity/correctness of the order subsequent improvements cannot be used to test the validity of the impugned order. Lastly, the mere fact that petitioners are allegedly residing in another village is not a ground for cancellation of the patta. 8. Apart from all of the above, this Court notices that pattas granted in the year 1993 and 1994 are sought to be resumed/cancelled in the year 2008. The law is well settled and the reasonable period/the interpretation of the words ‘at any time’ has been limited to a period of three years. The date of discovery of the alleged fabrication is also not spelt out. The law is well settled and the reasonable period/the interpretation of the words ‘at any time’ has been limited to a period of three years. The date of discovery of the alleged fabrication is also not spelt out. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that by merely raising a plea of a fake and fabricated pattas, the earlier assignments cannot be cancelled. 9. Accordingly, there shall be an order as prayed for. It is made clear however that if respondents are still of the opinion that the pattas are ‘fake and forged’, they are always at liberty to initiate appropriate action. The petitioners have to put on notice and given an opportunity to defend their case. 10. With the above observations the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.