IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 677 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/03/2009 in WP NO : 29278 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 M.Laxmamma W/o. Narasimha REddy, R/o. 2-95, Yellareddyguda, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Smt. Naga Bhushanamma @ Nagamani, W/o. Janardhan Reddy, R/o. 2-95, Yellareddyguda, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District. 3 M.Nagamalla Reddy, S/o. M.Vittal Reddy, R/o. Plot No.195, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Ranga REddy District. 4 Smt. M.Indira, W/o.Naga Malla Reddy, R/o. 2-95, Yellareddyguda, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District. 5 M.Anand Reddy, S/o. M.Vittal Reddy, R/o. Plot No.195, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Ranga REddy District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Kiran Kumar REddy, S/o. late Madduri narsamma, R/o. Yellareddyguda Vilage, Pati Ganapur Village, Medak District Rep by its Next friedn D.Bheemreddy. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants: SRI B.VENKAT RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MS.A.PULLA REDDY & ABHISHEK REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 677 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.29278 of 1998. The appellants herein are respondents 3 to 7 and the 1st respondent is the petitioner in the above writ petition. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the order dated 10.7.1996 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as confirmed by the order dated 27.6.1998 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he is the adopted son of late Narsamma and that the lands in survey Nos.48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 116, 117, 135 and 136 admeasuring Ac.20.07 guntas situated at Yellareddyguda village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District belonged to his father viz., M.Agi Reddy and he died leaving behind his wife and two daughters as his heirs and successors. The mother of the petitioner viz., Narsamma brought up the third respondent, who is no other than her sister’s daughter and performed her marriage with one Narsimha Reddy. While so, during the year 1982, on coming to know that the name of husband of the 3rd respondent is recorded as owner and possessor of the above said lands, the mother of the petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar, Vallabhanagar Taluk for rectification of the said wrong entries. During the course of enquiry, it was proposed that the said Narsamma should give up her claim in respect of half share out of above said lands and out of relationship, she had accepted for the same and accordingly, it was recorded in the proceedings incorporating the name of Narsamma and the third respondent for equal half share out of Ac.20.07 guntas. In the year, 1994, the said Narsamma came to know that since 1986 her name disappeared from the revenue records and the name of the third respondent alone is recorded in respect of Ac.20.07 guntas of land out of the above said survey numbers. On the directions of this Court in W.P.No.1210 of 1996 before the Court, the 2nd respondent passed orders directing the VAO to enter the name of the said Narsamma as owner and possessor in the revenue records. Subsequently, the names of respondents 5 and 6 are incorporated vide order dated 10.7.1996 of the 2nd respondent, without giving any notice to the said Narsamma. Hence, the said Narsamma carried the matter in appeal before the 1st respondent. But, without hearing the case of the said Narsamma, the 1st respondent passed orders confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 10.7.1996. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner. The learned single Judge having observed that the order impugned is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice, allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of the 1st respondent and remanded the matter to the 1st respondent to pass an order afresh in accordance with law, after intimating all the parties concerned the date of hearing in writing and giving them an opportunity of being heard. Having aggrieved by the same, respondents 3 to 7 filed the above writ appeal. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the main grievance of the writ petitioner in the above writ petition that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed, without giving any opportunity of hearing. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the orders impugned, the learned single Judge having satisfied that the principles of natural justice have been violated with reference to the case of the writ petitioner, remanded the matter to the 1st respondent for disposal. In view of the remand of the matter to the authorities, nothing prevents the parties to agitate their rights, if any, before them. Hence, we are not inclined to admit the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Date: 11th June, 2009 Gurc/nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 677 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 11/06/2009