IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15841 of 2002 Between: Konda Savithri ... PETITIONER a n d Collector, Nizamabad district, Nizamabad and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are two in number, assailing the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy passed in order reference A3/1371/2002 dated nil-7-2002 in exercise of powers under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. 2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this writ petition are: Kasarla Chinna Gangaiah – third respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district assailing mutation of Sy.No.96/4 admeasuring Ac.0-15 gts., situated at Lingapur village in the name of Kunta Pochaiah – 4th respondent. The Revenue Divisional Officer considered the material brought on record and proceeded to allow the appeal by an order dated nil-07-2002. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “From the above it is clear that late Kasarla Gangaiah is the original pattadar of Sy.No.96/4 extent 0-15 gts., situated at Lingapoor (v) and he died on 4-10-69. Later the pahani records were not maintained properly and recorded the name of Kunta Pochaiah in pahani records without any orders of mutation under relevant rules. Thus, it is established that the name Kunta Pochaiah is recorded in pahani records without any right and title against the Sy.No.96/4 extent 0-15 gts., of Lingapoor (v) and without any orders of mutation by competent authority and as such the same are treated as illegal and against rules. Hence, the same are hereby deleted as cancelled. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamareddy is directed to take action accordingly so issue PPB/TD duly passing mutation orders as per ROR Rules.” 3. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that Kunta Pochaiah who purchased land from the father of the third respondent converted the agricultural land into plots after obtaining permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat and thereafter sold plot Nos.6 and 7 to petitioner No.2 and plot No.3 to the petitioner No.1. In nutshell their contention is that the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) are not applicable since land in question is no more an agricultural land. It is the grievance of the petitioner that they were not put on notice by the Revenue Divisional Officer while ordering for incorporation of the name of the third respondent herein in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.96/4 admeasuring Ac.0-15 gts. 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 23-08-2002. The third respondent entered into appearance through a counsel. An interim order came to be passed on the even date vide WPMP No.19868 of 2002. The fourth respondent entered appearance and filed counter. He also moved WVMP No.3073 of 2002 with a prayer to vacate the interim order. The said vacate say petition came to be dismissed on 21-02-2003 directing the writ petition to be taken up for final hearing on 03-03-2003. Hence, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the fourth respondent obtained necessary permission from the Gram Panchayat for conversion of agricultural land in Sy.No.96/4 in house plots and sold the house plots to various persons. He would further submit that petitioner No.2 purchased plot Nos.6 and 7, whereas petitioner No.1 purchased plot No.3. Since the land in question is no more an agricultural land, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. 7. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the Gram Panchayat has not granted any lay out permission and to that effect fourth respondent placed on record the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat and in which case the contention of the petitioners with regard to the conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultural land cannot be sustained. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioners were not put on notice while passing the orders by the Revenue Divisional Officer in exercise of powers under Section 5-A of the Act. 9. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside remanding the mater to the Revenue Divisional Officer to put on notice to the parties and pass orders afresh to un-influence by any observation made in this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 21, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15841 of 2002 July 21, 2010