IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.72 of 2002 Between: Guduru Balireddy … Petitioner AND Agent to Government, Khammam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri R. Kameswara Rao Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Social Welfare This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.72 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 18.12.2001 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri R. Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Though notices were served on respondent Nos.4 to 6, no appearance is entered on their behalf and at the hearing, no one appeared for them. The dispute in the instant case relates to house No.9-341 of Prashant Nagar, Lakshmidevipally Village and Grampanchayat, Khammam District. The petitioner claims that the said property is his private property, which has nothing to do with the land assigned to respondent Nos.5 and 6 or allotted to respondent No.4. On the complaint made by respondent Nos.5 and 6, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Rules, 1969 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and issued notice to respondent No.4. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed order dated 28.01.1994. The case of respondent Nos.5 and 6 before respondent No.2 was that they were assigned an extent of Ac.2.25 guntas in Sy.No.17/88 and Ac.1.28 gutnas in Sy.No.17/95 respectively of Lakshmidevipally Village and respondent No.4 was in wrongful possession of the said land. It was the case of respondent No.4 that under G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 27.06.1974, the Government allotted Ac.15.25 guntas of land in Sy.No.17 adjacent to the Warehousing Corporation godowns and therefore it was not in occupation of any land, which was assigned to respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent No.2 in his order directed the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Kothagudem to get the land surveyed by the responsible oﬃcer and to demarcate correct position of the land and hand over the same to respondent Nos.5 and 6, if it is found that any part of the land assigned to them was encroached by respondent No.4 College. Questioning the said order of respondent No.2, respondent No.4 ﬁled CMA.No.9 of 1994 before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 relied on the Inspection Report of the Joint Collector to the eﬀect that the land of Ac.49.33 guntas assigned to the 19 tribals is situated on the other side of the KTPS Railway line, that the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Khammam, phodied the land assigned to 13 tribals in the said area and whereas in respect of the land allotted to respondent Nos.5 and 6 the same was identiﬁed in the land allotted to respondent No.4 college and that supplementary sethwar was also issued. Respondent No.1 also relied on the Inspection Report of the Tahsildar, wherein he observed that respondent Nos.5 and 6 sold the land to three non- tribals, who include one Gunda Bal Reddy to the extent of Ac.1.02 ½ guntas. Respondent No.1 observed that while conducting the survey, the Assistant Director has not properly phodied the land and on that premise he set aside order dated 28.01.1994 passed by respondent No.2 and directed the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Kothagudem to hand over the land allotted to respondent No.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in purporting compliance of this order of respondent No.1, the property belonging to him is proposed to be taken over. He questioned this action on the ground that he was not a party to the proceedings before respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that he had no notice or opportunity of hearing. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare pointed out that the order of respondent No.1 shows that Gunda Bal Reddy was one among the purchasers of the property from respondent Nos.5 and 6 and therefore the petitioner may not be the aﬀected party as his name is Guduru Bali Reddy. In my considered view, if respondent No.1 felt that the property in occupation of the petitioner forms part of the property assigned to respondent Nos.5 and 6 and that the said property was identiﬁed wrongly in the property belonging to respondent No.4, he ought to have served notices to the petitioner and other interested persons before passing the order, which may eventually aﬀect the interest of the petitioner. Though there is discrepancy in the name mentioned in the order passed by respondent No.1 and the name of the petitioner, it is not really known whether the name Gunda Bal Reddy is a mistake for Guduru Bali Reddy. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that if the petitioner is not the one, whose name is referred to in the order passed by respondent No.1, then respondent No.3 and his subordinates should not interfere with his property. The present situation has arisen on account of respondent No.1 failing to issue notices to the persons concerned, who allegedly are in occupation of the land said to be belonging to respondent No.4. Before passing the impugned order, he ought to have heard all those persons such as the petitioner, whose interest would be likely to be aﬀected. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.2 shows that he merely directed the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Kothagudem to get the land surveyed and demarcated and that if it is found that any part of the property assigned to respondent Nos.5 and 6 is found encroached by respondent No.4, the same shall be restored to them. I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the order passed by respondent No.2, which appears to be just and equitable. The whole controversy appears to be centered around the identity of the land. This issue could have been easily resolved by a proper survey and demarcation after notice to all the interested persons. Therefore, the order of respondent No.1 is quashed. Respondent No.3 (Tahsildar) is directed to get the survey conducted and the respective lands of respondent Nos.4 and 6 demarcated. He shall issue notices to the petitioner and other interested persons before the land is surveyed and demarcated. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.83 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.09.2008 ES