IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 11588 of 2002 Between: Smt. Kunni Bai (Died) per L.R. Smt. Uma Devi W/o Sri Omprakash R/o 19-3-1018, Shamseergunj, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Prl Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Govt. of A.P., Rep by its Joint Collector Lakidikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Revenue Divisional Chevella Division Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Smt. Kanjarla Yellamma (Major) W/o Nagaiah R/o Himayatnagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 Kanjarla Narsimha R/o Himayatnagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or orders one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records on the file of 1st Respondent in memo No.51978/Assn.V.2/98-14 dt. 1-6-2002 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and against the articles-300 A of Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.DHANANJAI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.11588 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to call for the records relating to Memo No.51978/Assn.V.2/98-14, dated 01.06.2002, on the file of 1st respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, originally the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Smt.Kunni Bai purchased the lands admeasuring Ac.1.32 gts. and Ac.1.33 gts. covered by Sy.Nos.151/8/1 and 151/8/2 respectively situated at Himayatnagar village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deeds No.1171/65 dated 27.12.1965 and 1170/65 dated 27.12.1965 respectively for valid consideration and eversince the said purchase, she was in possession and enjoyment of the same till her death i.e., 21.11.1981. After the demise of Smt.Kunni Bai, the petitioner herein has become the absolute owner and possessor of the said lands by virtue of a Will deed executed by Smt.Kunni Bai. While so, on the representations submitted by the unofficial respondents herein, the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, verified the records and passed orders dated 04.10.1995 in File No.B/2080/95 against Smt.Kunni Bai and ordered to restore the possession of the subject lands and further directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to take over the possession of the subject lands and handover the same to legal heirs of original assignees. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein carried the matter in appeal before the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevalla Division, Ranga Reddy District, who, by order dated 29.06.1996, dismissed the appeal confirming the orders dated 04.10.1995 passed by the 4th respondent. Challenging the order of the 3rd respondent passed on 29.06.1996, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District. The 2nd respondent, after detail consideration of the orders passed by the 4th respondent, as confirmed by the 3rd respondent, did not feel interfering with the orders passed by the 4th and 3rd respondents and has dismissed the appeal vide orders dated 30.05.1998. Against the said orders of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent-Government, who through its memo dated 01.06.2002, confirmed the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents and perused the impugned orders and other material made available on record. Admittedly, the present case is of purchase of assigned lands by Smt.Kunni Bai from the original assignees. According to the petitioner, Smt.Kunni Bai purchased the subject lands as a landless poor person and in good faith. It is also the case of the petitioner that the subject lands were purchased in the year 1965, whereas the proceedings for restoration were initiated in the year 1995 i.e., after 30 years. Further, it is the contention of the petitioner that the very proceedings of restoration were initiated against a dead person Smt. Kunni Bai and, therefore, the impugned order and the orders passed by the respondents 2 to 4 are liable to be set aside. In the case on hand, the order passed by the 4th respondent clearly shows that the very proceedings of restoration of possession of the subject lands were initiated against a dead person Smt.Kunni Bai. Except saying that notices were served on one Kashinath, no other evidence is placed before the Court to show that the same were served on an appropriate person or a legal heir of Smt.Kunni Bai. Thus, when the proceedings are initiated against a dead person, they are declared as null and void. Therefore, the impugned order and the orders passed by respondents 2 to 4 are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, this will not preclude the respondents from conducting enquiry afresh into the matter and passing appropriate orders as per law. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 03.06.2009 v v