IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 29278 of 1998 Between: Master Kiran Kumar Reddy, S/o.Late Madduri Narsamma, (Minor), R/o. Yellareddyguda Village, Pati Ganapur Village, Medak District, rep.by his Next friend D.Bheemreddy, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 THe Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District Goshamahal, Hyderabad. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 M.Laxmamma, W/o. Narasimha Reddy, R/o. 2-95, Yellareddy guda, Kapra, R.R.Dist. 4 Smt. Naga Bhushanamma @ Nagamani, W/o. Janardhan Reddy, R/o. 2-95, Yellareddy guda, Kapra, R.R.Dist. 5 M.Nagamalla Reddy, S/o. M.Vittal Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 195, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, R.R.District. 6 Smt. M.Indira, W/o. Naga Malla Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 195, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, R.R.Distrct. 7 M.Anand Reddy, S/o. Vittal Reddy, Plot No. 195, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs or direction declaring and setting aside the order dt. 10.7.96 passed in file No. ROR/B/1439/1440/96 on the file of the second respondent as confirmed by the order dt. 27.6.98 passed in file No. A2/1907/97 & 1908 on the file of the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary against the principles of natural Justice and without juisdication. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.A.PULLA REDDY & ABHISHEK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Yet another case where there is complete lack of assistance from the Government Pleader concerned. Neither he nor any of the Assistant Government Pleaders are present at the time of hearing. To compound the problem, not even a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent though the writ petition is pending on the file of this Court for the past more than a decade. While Sri A. Pulla Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would refer in detail to the chronology of the events, and raise several contentions, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine any of these contentions as the writ petition is required to be allowed on the short ground that the impugned order of the first respondent dated 27.06.1998 is in violation of principles of natural justice. In the impugned order dated 27.06.1998, arising out of an appeal preferred under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short – ‘the Act’), the first respondent held as under: “……………Subsequently this case has been adjourned from time to time i.e., 28-6-97, 26-7-97, 27-12-97, 3-1-98, 17-1-98, 24-1-98, 7-3-98, 4-4-98, 2-5-98 either on the request of the parties concerned or non-sitting of this Court due to some other work and finally posted to 20-6-98. On that day this case was reserved for orders. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the respondents and perused the lower court records and as well as the material papers available. It is seen that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara had validated a Regd.Sale Deed in favour of respondent No.4 and 5 in respect of suit lands bearing Sy.No.48 and 49 to an extent of Ac.2-00. It is seen from the lower Court records that Smt.Laxmamma who was the vendor of the suit lands was recorded as pattedar along with others but not the appellant. It is seen from the lower court records also that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara has passed the orders duly issuing the notices to all and followed the procedure laid down in R.O.R. Act and Rules. In view of the foregoing facts, I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal in File No.ROR/B/1439/96, dated 10-7-96, hence the appeal is dismissed. Typed to dictation, corrected by me and pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 1998.” In the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, it is specifically pleaded that late Narsamma had filed an appeal before the first respondent in file No.A2/1907/97, that the said appeal was posted for hearing on 20.06.1998, that the counsel, appearing for late Narsamma, had telephoned the first respondent to know whether the matter was being taken up, that he was informed by the office of the first respondent that the presiding officer was transferred, that no cases would be taken up for hearing, that the date of next adjournment would be given, that due to the said reason neither the counsel nor late Narsamma were present before the first respondent on 20.06.1998, that when late Narsamma enquired about the next date of hearing, the concerned section clerk informed her that the matter was reserved for orders, that, on coming to know about the said fact, she had immediately filed an application on 14.07.1998 under due acknowledgement for reopening of the matter, as the matter was not heard and no orders were passed by that date, but the first respondent, without reopening the matter and without hearing her counsel, had passed the impugned order ante-dating it as 27.06.1998. To these serious allegations, the first respondent, who was duty bound to meet the allegations by way of a counter affidavit, has chosen to remain silent. In the absence of the learned Government Pleader concerned this Court is not even in a position to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said statement. Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 7, would, however, contend that the appellant had failed to avail the opportunities given from time to time and that, it was in such circumstances, the first respondent was constrained to pass the order. Learned counsel would further state that the writ petition as filed was not maintainable since there was an alternate remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act. Respondents 3 to 7 have filed their counter affidavit. However, the detailed allegations in para-12, of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, have not been met in the counter affidavit except in para-7 of the counter affidavit wherein it is stated as under: “I humbly submit that the rest of the allegations are deemed to have been denied and no specific reply is needed as same are false and baseless and tailored for the purpose of the Writ Petition.” Such bald and vague denials to the specific assertion, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would not suffice to hold that such allegations do not merit acceptance. The averments aforementioned, in the absence of a specific denial, have necessarily to be accepted. The impugned order does not reflect delay being solely on account of the petitioner herein. In fact, the order records that the matter was adjourned from time to time at the request of the parties and since the officer himself was not available. It is not known as to how many of these adjournments were sought by the petitioner, how many by respondents 3 to 7 and how many on account of the officer not being available. The allegations in para-12, in the absence of a specific denial in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 7, and failure to even file a counter affidavit by the first respondent, cannot but be accepted. The averments therein are grave and serious in nature. Failure to rebut such contentions would reflect poorly on the officer concerned and the manner in which he has exercised the quasi- judicial powers conferred on him under the Act. The only other contention urged by Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao is with regards maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of existence of an alternate remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act. It is well settled, by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court including WHIRLPOOL CORPN. vs. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS[1], that existence of an alternate remedy is no bar for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that this Court would, ordinarily, not relegate a party to the alternate remedy under the statute, when the allegations are of lack of jurisdiction or of violation of principles of natural justice. The allegations, in the present case, are one such. Further, relegating a party to the remedy of an appeal or revision would ordinarily be at the stage of admission of the writ petition. In the case on hand, the writ petition was admitted in the year 1998 and has been pending on the file of this Court for the past more than a decade and, since the writ petition is now being finally heard, I see no reason to now relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy of revision under the Act. Viewed from any angle the plea, of existence of an alternate remedy of revision barring exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must fail. As the impugned order is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice, it is liable to be set aside. It is made clear that it is only the order of the first respondent which is being set aside. The matter stands remanded back to the first respondent who shall, after intimating all the parties concerned in writing of the date of hearing and giving them an opportunity of being heard, pass an order afresh in accordance with law. The grievance of respondents 3 to 7, as espoused by Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao, that the matter has been pending for decades together, cannot be brushed aside. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal at the earliest, in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 4th March 2009 CVRK [1] (1998) 8 SCC 1