THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.12592 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a certiorari to quash the order, dated 02.02.2005, in Case No.F3/5181/1999-F3/20/Inam/1999, on the file of the Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy. Incidentally, A.P.Gazette Notification No.50-A, dated 13.12.2001, is also under challenge. Before going into the merits of the case, it is necessary to notice that the prayer made insofar as quashing A.P.Gazette Notification No.50-A, dated 13.12.2001, is concerned, it cannot be gone into in a writ petition. It is always open for the petitioners to work out their remedies to question the same. Coming to the merits of the case insofar as first limb of the prayer is concerned, at the outset it may be noticed that the land in question i.e. Acs.24.05 gts. in survey No.106 of Sheligira Village, Manoor Mandal, Medak District was Mafi Inam, as noted in all the revenue records, and possession was recorded up to 01.11.1973. Under those circumstances, an Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned in the year 1998 in favour of the petitioners and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. While that being so, the A.P.State Wakf Board has challenged the order made in file No.D4/Inam/1696/98, dated 07.10.1988, declaring the petitioners herein as occupants in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.24.09 guntas situated in Survey No.106 of Sheligira Village, Manoor Mandal, Medak District, before the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy under Section 24 of A.P.(Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The Joint Collector, having heard the matter, allowed the appeal as prayed for by order, dated 02.02.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice the following order passed by the Joint Collector: “After several adjournments the case was posted 02.09.2004 and was adjourned to 23.09.2004 at the request of counsel for appellant. However on 23.09.2004 court work could not be conducted and as such the case was called again on 14.10.2004. On 14.10.2004 the counsel of both the parties were present and the case was adjourned and posted to 04.11.2004 finally at the request of the counsel for the respondents. On 04.11.2004 also the counsels of the both parties were present, the case was adjourned at the request of the counsel for respondents as he wanted to peruse the original documents, thus the case was posted to 02.12.2004. However on 2.12.2004 the case work could not be taken up and the case was called on 16.12.2004. On 16.12.2004 the counsel for appellant was present and ready for advancing arguments. Since the counsel for respondent was absent the case was finally posted to 23.12.2004. However on 23.12.2004 the case work could not be taken up. The case was finally called on 20.01.2005. On 20.01.2005 the counsel for appellant was present. The counsel for respondent called absent. The counsel for appellant advanced his arguments. As the case is being precipitated on one pretext or the other since 1999, the case is reserve for orders on hearing the arguments of the counsel for appellant.” From the above, it is clear that the matter was finally heard in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein. Sri C.R.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the dates of hearing of the matter were not properly informed to the learned counsel for the petitioners before the Joint Collector and even the copy of Muntakab purported to have been produced by the Wakf Board was not served. Even otherwise, the claim of the first respondent was not based on any registered document and there is no Ashurkhana on the land in question. Therefore, it cannot be called as a wakf property. He further contended that no opportunity was given to the petitioners either to peruse the Muntakab or other material relied upon by the first respondent before the Joint collector. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector, which gives rise to grave civil consequences, should not have been passed in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein. Therefore, the order impugned suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 02.02.2005, passed by the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy is set aside and the matter is remitted back to him for consideration afresh, after hearing both the parties and allowing them to lead evidence, both oral and documentary. Till the disposal of the appeal afresh as directed by this Court, status quo as on today shall be maintained. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) Date: 21.01.2011 VGB/KSP