IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13940 of 1995 Between: 1 Smt. Jogani Sanyasamma W/o. Buddaiah Alias Sanyasi Rao R/o. Kapavaram H/o. Buttayagudem, Polavaram Taluk 2 Sri Rayavarapau Abbayi Alias Pydiah, S/o. Appalaswamy R/o. Kapavaram H/o. Buttayagudem, Polavaram Taluk ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Secretary, Social Welfare & Tribal Welfare Department Hyderabad 2 Mandal Revenue Inspector, Buttaya Gudem, West Godavari District 3 The Agent to Government Eluru, West Godavari District 4 Special Deputy Collector Tribal Eluru, West Godavari District 5 Podiam Peda venkayya S/o. Mutyalu, Kapavaram H/o. Buttayagudem, Polavaram Taluk .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Rt.No. 89 dated 16.2.1995 of the Government and the consequential order or Mandal Revenue Inspector, Buttayagudem Dated 25.6.1995 as arbitrary, illegal, malafide and void and violative of Article 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners din R.S.No. 1198-2 admeasuring Ac.3-24 totaling Ac.15-32 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVINDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No. : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.13940 of 1995 ORDER: The proceedings under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/59, as amended by Regulation 1/70, were initiated against the petitioners at the instance of the 5th respondent, before the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru- 4th respondent herein. The same was taken as S.R.No.25 of 1978. Through order, dated 27.9.1978, the 4th respondent directed resumption of the land from the petitioners for making over the same to the 5th respondent. S.R.A.No.5/79 filed by the petitioners before the appellate authority i.e. the 3rd respondent was also dismissed on 23.10.1981. Thereafter, the petitioners availed the remedy of revision before the first respondent. The revision was rejected through G.O. Rt.No.89, dated 16.2.1995. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The principal ground urged by the petitioners is that having kept the revision pending for more than a decade, the first respondent rejected the same without issuing a notice of hearing to the petitioners. It is represented that the counsel who is initially engaged has since left the country and no effort was made by the first respondent to serve notice on the petitioners. Submissions are made touching on the merits also. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the notice of hearing in the revision was dispatched to the counsel who entered appearance and there was no response to such notice. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners on merits are contradicted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners approached the first respondent by way of revision feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by respondents 3 and 4. When order of stay was denied to them, they approached this court by filing W.P.No.4656 of 1982. The writ petition was disposed of on 23.6.1987 directing them that the petitioners shall not be evicted till the disposal of the revision by the Government. Inasmuch as the revision was pending, for more than a decade, it is but natural the necessity to change counsel arises either on account of their not being in profession or leaving the place. The petitioners had changed two to three Advocates. The result was that though a notice of hearing was dispatched to the said counsel, none appeared. Therefore, the revision was dismissed without even touching the merits of the matter. After referring to the fact that the petitioners did not respond to the notice of hearing, the first respondent observed as under: “In the circumstances, the Government do not see any merits in the revision petition warranting interference with the orders issued by the Courts below and, therefore, the Government hereby reject the revision petition filed by Sri J.Sanyasi Rao and another against the orders of Agent to the Government, West Godavari District in SRA.No.5/79, dated 23.10.1981. The counsel is requested to inform his clients accordingly.” The dispute relating to the subject matter of this writ petition dates back to several decades. The land was initially purchased in the year 1929. The fourth respondent had set-aside the sale which has taken place in the year 1929. Strong and cogent reasons are required for such an extreme step. The ultimate remedy by way of revision cannot be denied to the petitioners by denying the right of being heard. Though a notice of hearing is said to have been issued, it was to the counsel who ceased to be on record or left the country. The petitioners have furnished the particulars in respect of the counsel engaged by them from time to time. Though this court is reluctant to keep the dispute alive, there is no alternative in view of the fact that the matter was not disposed of on merits by the first respondent. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. The first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by issuing a notice of hearing to the petitioners themselves. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 01.12.2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{PRASAD}