THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1910 of 2010 (Dated: 19-04-2011) Between: Smt Manne Anjamma and others …Appellants A n d Anjaiah and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1910 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 17.4.2010 passed in Case No.F1/09/2009 on the file of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar on an appeal filed under Section 90(1) of A.P. (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision are: - Anjaiah, Balraj and Venkataiah approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooqnagar (Shad Nagar) under Section 32(1) of A.P. (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for restoration of possession of land admeasuring Ac.5.23 guntas comprising Survey No.146 (corresponding to new Sy.No.182) situated at Farooqnagar village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The M.R.O allowed the application filed by the above-referred three individuals, by order dated 05.03.2004. 3. The petitioners herein filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar assailing the order dated 5.03.2004. The appellate authority set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooqnagar for de nova enquiry. The Tahisldar, Farooqnagar, on remand of the case, conducted enquiry by issuing notices to the parties concerned and proceeded to pass an order dated 30.5.2009 ordering restoration of possession of Ac.3-05 gts. , excluding the houses and roads to (1) Anjaiah (2) Balraj (since died, represented by his legal representatives, Pochamma, Jangaiah, Ranuka, Yadagiri, Sangeetha) and (3) Venkataiah. 4. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar under Section 90(1) of the Act assailing the order passed by the primary authority. The principal ground urged before the appellate authority was that the petitioners were not put on notice by the primary authority while conducting de nova enquiry. 5. The appellate authority considered the material brought on record and came to the conclusion that the issue of legal heirs to the deceased protected tenant is required to be examined by the competent civil Court. However, the appellate authority recorded a finding that the petitioners could not establish their right over the said property. With these findings, the appellate authority proceeded to dismiss the appeal, by an order dated 17.4.2010. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order impugned in the revision, which reads as hereunder:- “ As regard to the claims of Sri Yerukali Rama Swamy S/o late Chennaiah and (2) others they have not produced any clinching evidence to show that they are the LRs of the PT. They have no locus stand to claim as the LRs of the PT and there petition is rejected. If they have any grievance they can agitate the matter before the competent authority. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in a recent ruling reported in 2006(5) ALD 348, held that Revenue Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the legal heir ship of a deceased P.T. The succession certificate from the competent Court of law is mandatory to treat them as legal heirs of the P.T and allow them to enjoy the P.T.Rights. In view of the above circumstances, it is construed that the appellants could not establish their rights over the suit property. I see no reasons to interfere in the order passed by the lower Court. Hence, the order of the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar dt.30.5.2009 in file No.G/5756/2008 is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed”. Hence, this revision by the petitioners. 6. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 29.4.2010. Respondents 1 and 3 to 8 entered appearance through a counsel. Notice to respondents 9 to 11 is stated to be not necessary. 7. Heard Sri K.Mahipathi rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri G.Tirupathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and 3 to 8. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners took a specific stand before the appellate authority that they were not put on notice by the primary authority after remand of the matter and the enquiry came to be conducted by the primary authority without putting them on notice. But the appellate authority did not record any finding on the plea advanced by the petitioners. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 8 that one of the legal representatives of Yerukali Ramaswamy attended the enquiry before the primary authority and it amounts to proper representation on behalf of the petitioners herein and in which case, it is impermissible for the petitioners to contend that they were not put on notice. 10. I have gone through the order passed by the primary authority on remand. There are only twelve respondents before the primary authority. The petitioners herein are not shown in the array of the respondents before the primary authority. The order passed by the primary authority does not indicate that the petitioners herein were put on notice during enquiry. The appellate authority, in spite of petitioners taking specific stand of their not putting on notice, has not considered their plea and proceeded to record findings on merits. When the primary authority has not served notice on the petitioners with regard to de nova enquiry, any finding recorded by the primary authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice. On this short ground, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order made in case No.F1/09/2009, dated 17.4.2010 and the matter is remanded back to the primary authority for consideration afresh and to pass appropriate orders on merits after putting on notice all the parties concerned. All the parties are directed to appear before the primary authority on 03.5.2011. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.19-04-2011 Note:- Issue CC in two days (B/o) RAR U R G E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1910 of 2010 (Dated: 19-04-2011)