IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2924 of 2000 Between: A.Kumarchandra Babu. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (UC-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S.R.Ashok, Senior Counsel for Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy. Counsel for respondents: Sri ​O.Manohar Reddy for R.2. AGP for Revenue for R.1 & R.3. None for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside Memorandum No.59026/UC.II(2)/90-9 dated 15-2-2000 passed by respondent No.1. The case involves a plenitude of facts, which need not be adverted to in detail as the Writ Petition is proposed to be disposed of on a short point. Order ﬁnally determining the surplus land was passed by respondent No.2 on 28-3-1988. The petitioner claiming to be the holder of agreement of sale on 13-12-1976, relating to House bearing No.8-3-319/1/A, situated at Yellareddyguda, constructed on the land admeasuring 1000 Sq. meters, which is declared as surplus, ﬁled revision under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the 1976 Act”) before respondent No.1 against the said order of respondent No.2. The said revision, which was ﬁled on 27-6-1990 was heard in the year 1999. It was disposed of by respondent No.1 in Memorandum No.59026/UC.II(2)/90-9 dated 15- 2-2000. In paragraph 5 of the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner averred that respondent No.1 issued Memo dated 11-2-1999 directing the petitioner’s counsel to appear before him for personal hearing; and that during the course of hearing the Secretary concerned stated that the petitioner is entitled to ﬁle an appeal under Section 33 of the Act, and, hence, he would remand the case to the Appellate Authority. It is further stated that as no orders were passed till 10-11-1999, the petitioner ﬁled application on 10-11-1999 requesting respondent No.1 for aﬀording an opportunity of personal hearing; and that as there was no reply from respondent No.1, he again made another application on 18-2- 2000 with a similar request, but the petitioner received the impugned order whereby the revision petition was dismissed. In view of this categorical assertion and in the absence of speciﬁc reference to the petitioner’s representation dated 10- 11-1999 in Memo dated 25-2-2000 passed by the Additional Secretary to Government, the Principal Secretary, Revenue (UC-II) Department was directed to ﬁle an aﬃdavit with regard to the claim of the petitioner that he filed a petition on 10-11-1999 seeking opportunity of personal hearing. In pursuance of the said direction, the Principal Secretary ﬁled an aﬃdavit, wherein she, inter alia, stated that after giving opportunity of personal hearing on 27- 2-1999 to the petitioner, orders were passed on 9-7-1999 rejecting the revision petition; but due to administrative reasons the order was communicated on 15-2-2000. She admitted that the petitioner submitted his petition dated 10- 11-1999, but even by that time order was already passed on 9-7-1999 and, therefore, the question of aﬀording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner does not arise. At the hearing, Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, invited my attention to references 21 and 22 contained in the impugned Memo dated 15-2- 2000, by which respondent No.1 dismissed the petitioner’s revision petition. Aﬃdavit dated 22- 8-1999 of the petitioner and letter dated 23-11-1999 of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Khairtabad, are mentioned in the said two references. In para 40(b) of the order, the Principal Secretary referred to the petitioner’s aﬃdavit dated 22-8-1999 and in paragraph 41(B) he referred to another aﬃdavit dated 22-11-1999 of Sri A.Ravindra Prasad (father of the petitioner). As observed, report dated 23-11-1999 of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Khairtabad, (which ﬁnds a mention in reference No.22), is evidently the report which is mentioned at the bottom of para 41(B) of Memo dated 15-2-2000. These references, thus, clearly suggest that the stand taken by the Principal Secretary in her aﬃdavit that the order was already passed on 9-7-1999, does not appear to be correct. If such an order was passed on 9-7- 1999, there could be no possibility of the said order containing references of material pertaining to subsequent dates. The fact remains that the impugned Memo bears the date 15-2- 2000. On these incontrovertible facts, there is no justiﬁcation for the Principal Secretary to deny a further opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner when a speciﬁc request was admittedly made through his representation dated 10-11-1999. It hardly needs emphasis that valuable property right is involved in the proceedings and the person who is likely to be aﬀected by any order passed by respondent No.1 is entitled to be given proper and adequate opportunity of hearing before an order is passed. The audi alteram partem, which is the bedrock of the principles of natural justice is, therefore, required to be stringently observed before passing an order adverse to the interest of the party. On the facts as discussed above, I have no doubt that respondent No.1 has not aﬀorded the opportunity, as required by the petitioner, before passing the impugned order. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order in Memo dated 15-2-2000 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 for considering the revision petition of the petitioner, afresh, after giving him an opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner is entitled to raise all the legally permissible grounds, including the ground that in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the proceedings under the Act have abated. Respondent No.1 shall dispose of the revision petition, within a period of three months and till then status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained with respect to possession of the property in dispute. ----------------------- ----------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:25-09-2008 MNR