IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO :26089 of 1997 Dated: 13.02.2007 Between: 1.Kammari Shankaraiah, S/o Venkaiah. 2.Kammari Lakshmi Narayana, S/I Venkaiah. 3.Kammari Brahma Chari, S/o Venkaiah. 4.Kammari Kanaka Chary, S/o Venkaiah. 5.Kammari Krishna Chary, S/o Venkaiah. All are residents of Hafeezpet (V),Serilingampally (M) R.R.District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1.Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.The Joint Collector, Rangareddy District. 3.The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli, Rangareddy District. 4.Vadla Brahma Chary, S/o Narsimha, R/0 Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District. 5.Vadla Anantha Chary, S/o Narsimha, R/o Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District. . RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.26089 of 1997 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the impugned proceedings No.B1/6529/93 dated 24.06.1996 passed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector and also the proceedings No.C/1242/89 dated 16.01.1992 of the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer and sought a direction from this Court to give a direction to them to include the names of the petitioners in revenue records in respect of the disputed land. The case of the petitioners is that their grand-father, Kammari Kamakshi, and Vadla Anthanna are joint pattedars and possessors of the agricultural land in Sy.Nos.135, 136 and 137 to the extent of Ac.3.06 guntas situated in Miyapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District and in a division each of them has got Ac.1.23 guntas and since then they were enjoying their respective half shares. After the death of Kammari Kamakshi, his only son Kammari Venkaiah, father of the petitioners, is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property and thereafter the petitioners succeeded to the said property after the death of their father. It is their case that on 01.03.1993 when the respondents 4 and 5 tried to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in question, they resisted and on enquiry they came to know that the father of respondents 4 and 5 purchased the lands under an agreement of sale from petitioner No.1 and that he filed a petition before the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer for validating the sale and the 3rd respondent, without giving notice to the petitioners, passed an order dated 16.01.1992 validating the agreement of sale. Thereafter the petitioners filed a revision before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector and the same was dismissed on 24.06.1996. While admitting this writ petition, this Court, on 07.10.1997, granted interim injunction in WPMP No.30325 of 1997 restraining the respondents 4 and 5 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the land in question. Subsequently, the respondents 4 and 5 filed WVMP No.3241 of 1997 seeking to vacate the aforesaid interim injunction and this Court by order dated 20.02.1998 vacated the said interim order. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the alleged enquiry by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer is behind the back of the petitioners and that the petitioners were not given any opportunity or notice in respect of the said enquiry. In fact, the aforesaid contention was put forth before this Court in WVMP No.3241 of 1997 and this Court while vacating the interim injunction order observed that “whether proper opportunity is given to the petitioners or not while validating the sale by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer is a matter to be considered during final disposal of the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 3 though served did not choose to file any counter-affidavit. Unofficial respondents 4 and 5 filed counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer has followed the entire procedure as prescribed by law. However, the same cannot be accepted in the absence of any counter-affidavit of the official respondents 1 to 3. As there is no material before this Court whether the petitioners were given any notice while validating the sale by the 3rd respondent, this Court has to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the enquiry by the 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer is behind the back of the petitioners. Therefore, the orders passed by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer as confirmed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector are liable to be quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with a direction to the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to hold a fresh enquiry after affording an opportunity to the petitioners. The impugned orders are hereby quashed. No costs. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that although the injunction order granted has been vacated by this Court, but the petitioners are still in continuous possession of the lands in question. In this view of the matter and in the interest of justice, all the parties are directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today pending disposal of the enquiry by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 13-02-2007 Gsn.