IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 825 of 2004 Between: Nagubandi Venkata Rama Rao, S/o Venkata Narasaiah R/o Kodad, Nalgonda District ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet Nalgonda District 3 The District Co-ordinator of Hospital Services, Nalgonda 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kodad, Nalgoda District 5 The President, Mandal Parishad, Kodad, Nalgonda distirct ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue any appropriate order or direction or a Writ more particularly a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to call for the records and to quash the proceedings. No. E.2/7254/2003 dt 23-12-2003 issued by the 1st Respondent herein by declaring the impugned order id illegal, void and without jurisdiction by suspending the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dt 23-12-2003 Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.G.DHARMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 825 OF 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for records relating to proceedings No.E2/7254/2003, dated 23.12.2003 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner states that his father donated Ac.2.00 of land by way of a registered gift deed dated 14.08.1963 for the purpose of locating a Primary Health Centre out of Ac.4.05 guntas in Sy.No.149/2 of Kodad Village. It is his case that when the third respondent occupied an extent of Ac.0.23 guntas in excess and constructed a compound wall, he approached respondents for redelivery of the excess land. As his request was rejected, he filed W.P.No.18416 of 2002 before this Court. By order dated 18.04.2003, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the District Collector, Nalgonda, to survey the land in occupation of Primary Health Centre and return the excess land to the petitioner. Pursuant to the order of this Court, survey was conducted by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Nalgonda, and he submitted his report stating that an area of 530.80 sq. yards was found to be excess, and the first respondent, by proceedings dated 16.09.2003, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet and Mandal Revenue Officer, Kodad, to deliver the excess land to the petitioner and, accordingly, excess land was delivered to him. Petitioner states that based on the complaint received from the Kodad Development Struggle Committee that there was no excess land under the occupation of Primary Health Centre, the first respondent again directed the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Nalgonda, to conduct resurvey and he submitted his report stating that there is no excess land and, accordingly, the first respondent passed the impugned order cancelling the proceedings dated 16.09.2003, directing to redeliver the excess land to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the first respondent passed the impugned order on a representation filed by the third parties. No review, which had to be filed within 90 days from the date of order, has been filed and no notice, as required under Section 166 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F (for short ‘the Act’), was issued by the first respondent before passing the impugned order. He further contended that the impugned order was passed behind the back of the petitioner and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Revenue contended that the review can be entertained at any time by the authority under Section 166 of the Act, that the petitioner must have been issued with a notice while conducting resurvey and, therefore, there was no necessity to issue notice under Section 166 of the Act before passing the impugned order and even, the order passed by the first respondent is appellable. It is nowhere asserted by the respondents either in the impugned order or in the counter affidavit that notice was issued to the petitioner while conducting resurvey or considering the representation/review petition. Thus, it is clear that survey was conducted behind the back of the petitioner without issuing any notice to him. Therefore, the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 166 of the Act. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ C.V. RAMULU, J 21st July, 2009 md/usd