IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13463 of 2009 Between: The A.P Bhoodan Yagna Board Gandhi Bhavan,Nampally,Hyderabad rep.by Secretary B.Damodhar,S/o.Narsimhmulu Masab Tank,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector-I Ranga Reddy District Lakdikapool,Hyderabad 2 The Tahsildar Maheswaram(M) Ranga Reddy District 3 Arun Kumar Kedia S/o.Banwarilal Kedia H.No.8-2-293/AA370,Plot No.370 Road No 24 Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad 4 Smt.Seema Kedia W/o. Arun Kumar Kedia H.No.8-2-293/AA370,Plot No.370 Road No 24 Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad 5 M/s. Binjusaria Developers Private Ltd rep.by its Managing Director Sri Arun Kumar Kedia H.No.8-2-293/AA370,Plot No.370,Plot No.370 Road No 24 Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad .....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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari Calling for the records of the 1st respondent made in Case No E5/4133/2008 dated 04-2008 purporting to set aside the orders of the 2nd respondent incorporating the name of the appellant board in the revenue records in Sy No.Sy No.447(Ac 12.04 Gts) Sy No.449 (Ac 15.31 gts) Sy No.450( Ac 15.29 Gts) Sy No.453 (ac 12.11 gts) total admeasuring an extent of Ac 55.35 gts at Mankal(V) Maheshwaram(M) Ranga Reddy District as arbitrary illegal,unconstitutional and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SRIKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner claims that Ac. 55.35 gts in S.Nos. 447, 449, 450 and 453 of Mankal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is vested in the petitioner-the A.P. Boodan Yagna Board, Nampally, Hyderabad having been donated by Smt.Shamsunnia Begum and Fakruddin Mohd, the Inamdar and the Protected Tenant respectively. Accordingly the Secretary of the petitioner addressed a letter to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District seeking substitution of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records instead of certain unauthorized names appearing in the Pattadar Column in respect of the above land. The District Collector by a letter dt. 30.8.2006 directed the 3rd respondent to take expeditious action. In view of the intimation of the petitioner by a letter dt. 8.5.2007, the 2nd respondent directed the Panchayat Secretary, Mankal to incorporate the name of the petitioner by reflecting the description of the land as ‘Bhoodan Karij Khata’ deleting the names of the respondents 3 to 5 whose names are recorded in pattadar column. Admittedly and demonstrably, this letter of the 2nd respondent issued in Memo Lr.No. D/1353/2007 dt. 25.5.2007 was without notice and opportunity to the respondents 3 to 5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents 3 to 5 applied to the 1st respondent complaining of the order of the 2nd respondent dt. 25.5.2007. The 1st respondent entertained the application of the respondents 3 to 5 as suo motu revision in purported exercise of the powers under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971. The 1st respondent in an elaborate but an unreasoned order set aside the order dt. 25.5.2007 of the 2nd respondent. It requires to be noticed that the 1st respondent’s order is a classic example of non-application of mind. He has set out the grievance of the applicants (respondents 3 to 5), the grounds of appeal and the contentions of the rival parties and by a classic cryptic order recorded the following conclusion: “In view of the various contentions raised by the petitioners and the respondent No.1 this Court is of view that, the direction of the Tahasildar, Maheshwaram issued vide Memo Lr.No. D/1353/2007, dt, 25.5.2007 to be Panchayath secretary Mankal village, Maheshwaram mandal for change of entries in respect of Land in S.Nos. 447 (12.04), 449 (15.31), 450 (15.29, 453 (12.11) total admeasuring Ac. 55.35 gts situated at Mankal village, Maheshwaram Mandall appears to be irregular.” The above extracted paragraph is the singular contribution of the 1st respondent in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Needless to state that the order is perverse and beseeches invalidation. The principle is well settled that the court should not invalidate an order, which has the effect of restoring another illegal order vide Gadde Venkateshwar Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 828). The order of the 2nd respondent dt. 25.5.2007 is also a perverse and illegal order as it was passed without notice and opportunity to the respondents 3 to 5 who are adversely affected by the said order, while the 1st respondent’s order is perverse, illegal and unsustainable for being a non-speaking order. In the circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to set aside the order of the 1st respondent dt. 25.4.2009 as well as the order of the 2nd respondent dt. 25.5.2007. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the issue de novo after issuing notices to the respondents 3 to 5 and to other persons who might be adversely affected by the proposal for incorporating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and after duly considering their objections if any to the proposal and by passing a reasoned order thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of as above after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri. V.Venkat Ramana, the learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 22.7.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 13463 of 2009 Dated: 22.7.2009.