IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7444 of 2004 Between: 1 Surabhi Lalitha W/o Ramchander Rao 4-5-132 133, Peddapalli Village Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar Dist 2 Bompally Bharani W/o Manohar Rao 4-5-132 133, Peddapalli Village Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar Dist ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, AP, Hyd. 2 The Assistatant District Registrar Officer of the Deputy Collector Fying Squad Registration & Stamps, Behind Subedari Post Officer Warangal .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to proceedings in Rc.No.CCRA1/10809/2002 dt. 28/02/2004 of the ﬁrst respondent conﬁrming the proceeings of the second respondent in Proceedings No. ADR/FS/286/2001 dt. 27/02/2002 and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7444 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 27.02.2002 and 28.02.2004 of respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. 2. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. 3. The petitioners purchased the properties under two sale deeds dated 17.09.2001. The said sale deeds were registered as document Nos.2189 and 2190 on 17.09.2001. Thereafter, on 18.10.2001, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice under Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioners ﬁled their objections on 08.11.2001. Respondent No.2, vide his order, dated 27.02.2002, rejected the said objections and levied the additional stamp duty. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal before respondent No.1, who, by his order, dated 28.02.2004, confirmed the order of respondent No.2. 4. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised several contentions. In the view, I am taking it is not necessary to deal with all those contentions on merits. In paragraph 8 of the aﬃdavit, the petitioners averred that the appeal was heard by Sri Veerabhadraiah, who was the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, and that, on his transfer, Sri D.Chakrapani succeeded to him and that, without further hearing the case, the latter passed the impugned order. This fact is not denied in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Assistant District Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, Warangal. The opportunity of personal hearing is meant to enable the Quasi Judicial Authority to appreciate the contentions raised during the hearing. Keeping this object in view, no purpose would be served if a particular Oﬃcer, who heard the submissions, has not passed the order and instead, his successor passes an order without hearing the parties. Such a procedure renders the very object for which the opportunity of personal hearing is given otiose. 5. The Supreme Court in Rowjee C.S. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] invalidated the orders passed by the Government pertaining to Nationalisation of the routes in the State of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that the Minister passed the orders on the basis of the reports submitted by an Oﬃcer, who heard the objections. Following this ratio, the order, dated 28.02.2004, passed by respondent No.1 is quashed. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to hear the appeal ﬁled by the petitioners afresh and pass an order thereafter. Till such time as the appeal is not disposed of, the petitioner shall not be prosecuted. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 27.08.2008 v v [1] AIR 1964 SC 962