IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12928 of 2005 Between: Sayeda Habeebunnisa Begum. … Petitioner And Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt.Ashok L.Gahloth for Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue for R.1 to R.3. Sri J.Suresh Babu for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 10-4-2005 passed by Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, respondent No.1 herein. Heard Smt.Ashok L.Gehloth, learned counsel representing Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3; Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.4; and perused the record. Land admeasuring Ac.18.04 guntas was the total extent of land comprised in Survey No.1088 of Kodangal village. Respondent No.4 ﬁled an application on 1-7-1997 before respondent No.3 for rectifying the extent of area in the said survey number as the said extent has been wrongly mentioned as Ac.24.04 guntas in Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. Respondent No.3 referred the matter to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, seeking permission to rectify the said defect. The District Collector, in turn, instructed the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Mahabubnagar, to demarcate the land as per possession and report. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Mahabubnagar, accordingly, submitted his report on 3-9-1997 to the eﬀect that in the Sethwar the extent of Ac.18.04 guntas in Survey No.1088 was recorded; and that larger areas have been mentioned in the Pahanies. He also reported that the Mandal Surveyor could demarcate the land. In pursuance of the said report, respondent No.3 issued Memo No.A/1053/97, dated 9-9-1997, based on which the Mandal Surveyor demarcated Survey No.1088 and reported that the said survey number contained only Ac.18-04 guntas. When the matter was reported to the District Collector, he informed respondent No.3 that he should follow the instructions of the Commissioner, Survey and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, contained in his proceedings dated 31-5-1989, wherein he clariﬁed that when the extent recorded in the Village Account i.e., 10(1) Account, and ROR is diﬀerent from the actual extent enjoyed on ground, the actual extent under physical possession should be recorded in the ROR after measurement. Accordingly, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 16-7-1998 reducing the area of Survey No.1088/AA as Ac.4.21 guntas and Survey No.1088/E as Ac.4.21 guntas. Feeling aggrieved by the said order to the extent of reducing the area to Ac.4.21 guntas in Survey No.1088/AA, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before respondent No.2, who, by his order dated 27-4- 2002, allowed the same and set aside the order of respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 ﬁled a revision petition before respondent No.1, which was allowed by him by the impugned order. From a perusal of the impugned order it is quite evident that on receipt of the application for correction of entry relating to the extent of land, respondent No.3 reported the matter to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, who gave instructions for demarcation of the land by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records. On the basis of the survey so conducted, the land was demarcated and revenue records were accordingly corrected. Though in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 he stated that respondent No.3 caused notices to be issued, proceedings dated 10-7-1998 of respondent No.3, by which he corrected the Record of Rights, did not contain any whisper about the notices given to the parties. No counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the oﬃcial respondents or the record has been produced to show that such notices have been issued. The petitioner speciﬁcally asserted in her aﬃdavit that the order passed by respondent No.3 is in violation of principles of natural justice. As the said averment has not been controverted and no record has been produced to show that notices were served on the petitioner before reducing the area in Survey No.1088/AA from Ac.7.21 guntas to Ac.4.21 guntas, the orders of respondents 3 and 1 cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and the said orders are quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration after giving notices to the petitioner, respondent No.4 and other interested parties. --------------------- ------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:04-08-2008 MNR