IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 21398 of 2000 Between: Penjarla Madhavi, D/o.P. Siddaram Reddy, Rep.by her Mother Natural Guardian, Smt.Penjarla Nagamani, W/o.Siddaram Reddy, aged about 35 years, Occ:Household, R/o.Peddamallareddy village, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhiknoor Mandal, at Bhiknoor, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of fWrit of Certiorari by calling the Records in respect of the impugned Memo No.ROR/4612/2000 dated: 26-9-2000 passed by the Respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to consider the case of the Petitioner herein fot Mutation in Revenue Records in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.912/AA and 911 admeasuring Ac. 1-25 gts. and in Sy.Nos.913/A and 909/AA total admeasuring Ac.0-17 gts. situated at Peddamallareddy village of Bhiknoor Mandal of Nizamabad District and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the interest justice and equity and in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 21398 of 2000 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Memo No.ROR/4612/2000, dated.26-09-2000 and to quash the same. A consequential direction is sought to carry out mutation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records in respect of the lands in Sy.No.912 and 911 admeasuring Ac.1.25gts and the lands in Sy.Nos.913 and 909 admeasuring Ac.0.17gts in Peddamallareddy village of Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. The aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition reﬂects that the petitioner, being a minor represented by her mother and natural guardian, claimed that her father and grand-mother executed registered gift deeds bearing document Nos.358/2000, dated.21-03-2000 and 773/2000 dated.23-05- 2000, gifting her the subject lands admeasuring Ac.2.02gts in Sy.Nos.912,911, 913 and 909 respectively of Peddamallareddy village, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. It is also stated that the possession of the said lands was delivered to the petitioner. Having acquired the title and ownership over the subject lands, the petitioner made an application to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Bhiknoor, the respondent in the writ petition, under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,1971 ( for brevity “the Act”) seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records insofar as the subject lands are concerned. It is stated that she also sought issuance of pattadar pass books in respect the subject lands. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent rejected her application under the impugned memo dated.26-09-2000 stating that one Smt.P.Balamani ﬁled an objection to the petitioner’s application contending that she was the wife of the petitioner’s father and also had one son by name P.Linga Redy through him. Taking note of the said objection, the respondent stated that as the mutation of the lands was under dispute, the request of the petitioner was not considered and she was advised to approach the Civil Court for redressal. The complaint of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the respondent failed to comply with the procedure prescribed under the Act and rejected her application without giving an opportunity as required under the Act. No counter-affidavit is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the petitioner’s claim was supported by registered documents, it was not open to the respondent to reject her claim without holding a proper enquiry duly aﬀording her an opportunity of hearing. It is seen that Section.5(1) of the Act states to the eﬀect that on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section.4, the MRO is required to determine as to whether the record of rights would need to be amended in consequence thereof and shall carry out the said amendment in accordance with the determination. The proviso to Section.5(1) states that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf. In the present case the application of the petitioner basing on the registered gift deeds is in the nature of an intimation under Section.4 of the Act and accordingly the respondent was required to give an opportunity to the petitioner for making a representation before refusing the petitioner’s application. This would have been in conformity with the procedure prescribed in the proviso to Section.5(1) of the Act. The complaint of the petitioner that this procedure has not been followed, as demonstrated by the impugned memo, remains unrebutted in the light of the fact that the respondent failed to file a counter-affidavit. In view of the above situation, justice would be suﬃciently served by setting aside the impugned memo and remanding the matter to the respondent to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as required under the provisions of the Act and pass appropriate orders. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 15th September,2008 *T SNR