THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.16272 OF 2004 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the proceedings of the respondent no.1 – The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally dated 22.8.2003 vide proceedings no.B2/3601/95, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, void ab initio and without notice and enquiry and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioner is Sri Venkateshwara Welfare Society and it is represented by its President G.Siviah. All the members of the petitioner – Society were impleaded. The President of the petitioner – society filed writ affidavit. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner – society is registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 on 13.5.2004 and there are altogether 32 members in the society and they are all the plot owners of the land situate in Sy.No.170/2 of Thokotta village Secunderabad. The aims and objects of the petitioner – society is stated in the writ affidavit. It is stated that the members of the petitioner – society purchased various plots in the land comprised in Sy.No.170/2 situate at Thokotta village, Bowempally, Secunderabad under various registered sale deeds during the year 1995, registered in the office of Sub Registrar of Secunderabad from K.Sudhamma and other family members who are the legal heirs of late K.Asha Balaiah, the original owner. The Defence Estate Officer raised a dispute that the land to an extent of Acs.3-27 guntas in Sy.No.170/2 (old Sy.No.37/2 G.L.R. Survey No.689 and 721 of Thokotta village belonging to the Union of India and filed suit in O.S.No.266/1991 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, against the vendor of the petitioners K.Sudhama, seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession and that their vendor contested the matter stating that the land in dispute was a patta land and it is part of land which was purchased by his father in the year 1946 under registered sale deed. By judgment and decree dated 15.3.1996, the suit was dismissed and challenging the same, the Union of India filed appeal in A.S.No.99/1997 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad and the same also ended in dismissal on 18.1.2003 confirming the rights of the vendor. It is stated that the Union of India filed second appeal before this court with delay and the same was not admitted so far. Despite the judgments of the Civil Courts in favour of their vendor, the officials of Defence Estate Officer, A.P. Circle tried to interfere with the said land and hence their vendor filed W.P.No.13776/2003 on the file of this court and by order dated 11.7.2003 status quo orders were granted and the said writ petition is pending. Thereafter, the members of the petitioner – society, approached the Cantonment Board, seeking permission for sanction for construction of buildings in their respective plots under various applications and the same were rejected and the President of the petitioner – society filed W.P.No.13753/2004 questioning the rejection order of the Cantonment Board and the same was admitted on 5.8.2004 and directed that said writ petition be listed along with the present writ petition. It is stated that the Defence Estate Officer filed counter on 18.8.2004 in W.P.No.13753/2004 along with material papers and a copy of the counter and the material papers were served on their counsel along with the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 22.8.2003, which are impugned in this writ petition. 5. It is stated that the 1st respondent passed the orders on 22.8.2003 declaring the order of the 2nd respondent – District Revenue Officer dated 18.12.1991 in case No.B2/8431/91 as null and void. The 2nd respondent passed the orders on 18.12.1991 under Section 15(2) of Record of Rights Regulation 1358 F correcting the records relating to the land in Sy.No.37/2 old (Corresponding to new survey No.170/2 admeasuring Acs.7-27 guntas situate at Thokotta village, Secunderabad in favour of their Vendor, after due enquiry as contemplated under the said Act and directed the M.R.O. Secunderabad to incorporate the name of their vendor who is the successor in interest in the revenue records. The Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records was also requested to supply a copy of the Saitwar issued during 1356 F to the M.R.O. Secunderabad for effecting in the revenue records in the ensuring jamabandi to meet the ends of justice. The 2nd respondent had passed orders after considering all objections and after due enquiry as per the provisions of the Act and that it has become final, as it was not questioned by any aggrieved party including the defence authorities. Further it has been upheld by the Civil Courts both original as well as appellate courts in the suit and appeal filed by the Union of India. It is stated that the 1st respondent – District Collector, Hyderabad passed the orders on 22.8.2003 without any enquiry, notice either to their vendor or to the members of the petitioner – society who are registered purchasers as long back as in the year 1995. It is stated that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is unilateral without notice to any interested parties and even assuming that the orders are passed by the respondent no.1 under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 by invoking his revisional jurisdiction, still no order shall be passed adversely affecting any person unless, he had an opportunity of making a representation. With these averments the impugned order was sought to be set aside. Along with the writ petition, copy of the sale deed executed by the legal heirs of the original owner K.Asha Balaiah is filed as one of the material papers. 6. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and the contents in the impugned order are reiterated. While denying the averments made in the writ affidavit, the 1st respondent – District Collector stated that as per the revenue records the land in Sy.No.170 of Thokatta Village is classified as ‘Government land’ with an extent of Acs.351- 16 guntas till this date. The survey numbers does not have any sub division numbers and it is only a gut number. As per the General Land Register (Defence Records) of Secunderabad, the land comprising General Land Register No.721 admeasuring Acs.4-56 guntas is classified as ‘B-4’ under the management of Defence Estate Officer, the other General Land Register No.689 admeasuring Acs.2-91 gts is also classified as ‘B-4’ land and are owned by the Central Government (Ministry of Defence) and in which Military Estate Services, pumping station is installed. The petitioner society is tracing title through K.Sudama whose claim is in respect of Sy.No.170/2, which is a non-existing survey number either in record or on ground. It is state that the contention of the petitioner that the suit property was purchased by the father of K.Sudhama during 1946 is a bogus claim. On a petition filed by K.Sudama on 5.5.1989, the then District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad vide Memo No.B2/3764/89 dated 24.7.1989 rejected the petition stating that there is no question of implementation of Sethwar after efflux of 43 years. After issue of the said rejection memo and consequent upon an other application being filed by K.Sudhama under Section 15(2) of the Record of Rights Regulation 1358 Fasli, the then District Revenue Officer, Hyderbad District has issued orders in proceedingsno.B2/8431/1991 dated 18.12.1991 directing the M.R.O. Secunderabad (presently M.R.O. Tirumalgiri) to incorporate the name of the petitioner therein, who is the successor – in – interest in the revenue records as per the copy of the Sethwar issued in 1356 Fasli in respect of Sy.no.170/2 admeasuring Acs.7-20 guntas of Tokatta village without going into the facts of the case and without verifying the revenue records and the genuinity of the documents filed by the petitioner therein. As there was flaw in the case, the Commissioner of land revenue, A.P., Hyderabad has stayed the operation of the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad District issued in file No.B2/8431/1991 dated 18.12.1991 and initiated disciplinary proceedings against the then District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad District, whereupon a 10 per cent cut in pension was ordered as irregularities were confirmed. As per the revenue records and defence records, the land in question is Government land. Moreover the Record of Rights Act, 1989 has not been enforced in Hyderabad District, as most of the land in Hyderabad District were converted into non-agriculture and the Government Revenue (D.O.A. & R) Department, A.P. vide memo no.81978/DOA & R/89/1 dated 28.2.1990 have exempted Hyderabad District from the operation of Records of Rights. As such any order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad District under ROR is null and void. Orders in proceedings No.B2/3601/95 dated 22.8.2003 have been issued rejecting the claim of K.Sudama and canceling the orders issued in proceedings No.B2/8431/1991 dated 18.12.1991. In the counter the grounds stated in the impugned order are reiterated. It is further stated that the vendor of the petitioner – society with bogus and fabricated documents tried to claim the Government land in Sy.No.170 of Thokatta village. The vendor of the petitioner by suppressing the facts has sold the suit schedule land to different innocent persons under the guise of bogus and fabricated registered sale deeds and sethwar. Hence, the members of the petitioner – society cannot derive any title through their vendor and hence the writ petition is not maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that no notice has been issued to the petitioner - society, as it was not existing in any revenue records and moreover as per the affidavit submitted by the petitioner – society at paragraph 3, the society was registered on 13.5.2004 i.e., after passing of the impugned order. With these averments the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 7 . The Union of India – 4th respondent also filed counter and almost reiterated the averments made in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and the tenor of the counter affidavit is to the effect that the impugned order is passed against K.Sudahma and not against the writ petitioners and hence the writ petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. It is stated that the impugned order was passed on 22.8.2003 and the petitioner – society was registered in the year 2003 and the same was not entered in the revenue records and hence no notice need be given. It is also alleged that sale deed of the vendor of the petitioner – society is a fabricated document. With these averments, inter alia, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – society submitted that the members of the petitioner – society are the bona fide purchasers of different extents of land in Sy.No.170/2 situate at Thokatta Village, Bowenpally, Secunderabad under registered sale deeds during the year 1995. He submitted that the father of the vendor of the petitioner – society had purchased the land to an extent of Acs.7-27 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 20.12.1355 fasli from one Sri Abdul Wahab s/o Abdul Khader in old Sy.No.37/2 corresponding to new Sy.No.170/2 and that he had been in possession of the same and that the defence authorities have occupied an extent of about Acs.4-00 and constructed Military Estate Services Pumping Station and till now no compensation has been paid and the remaining extent is in possession of the vendor of the petitioner – society and that he has been paying land revenue to the Government. He submitted that on the application of the vendor of the petitioner – society, to the District Revenue Officer under Section 15(2) of Record of Rights Regulation 1358 F to correct the records relating to the land in Sy.No.37/2 (old) corresponding to new Sy.No.170/2 admeasuring Acs.7-27 guntas situate at Tokatta village, Secunderabad Mandal, Hydeabad, by order dated 18.12.1991 in Case No.B2/8431/91 the then District Revenue Officer after verification of the original sethwar of 1356 F, which is available with the Director Survey and Land Records, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer Secunderabad to incorporate the name of the vendor – K.Sudhama in the revenue records. He submitted that when the Defence Estate Officer tried to interfere with the possession of K.Sudhama, he filed W.P.No.12729/1989 before this court and initially order of status quo was granted directing not to interfere with the possession and as K.Sudhama (vendor of the petitioners) is in possession and asserting the title based on a registered sale deed and as the dispute with regard to title cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings, directed the Defence authorities to file civil suit and accordingly the Defence Estate Officer filed suit in O.S.No.266/1991 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and by judgment and decree dated 15.3.1996 the suit was dismissed confirming the title of K.Sudhama. The appeal filed by the Defence Authorities in A.S.No.99/1997 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad also met the same fate by judgment and decree dated 18.1.2003 and the second appeal filed by the Defence Estate Officer was also initially dismissed, but in view of review petition, the dismissal order was set aside and the second appeal was restored to file. He submitted that the order dated 18.12.1991 in Case No.B2/8431/91 passed by the District Revenue Officer directing to implement the sethwar and the incorporation of the name of the vendor of the petitioner – society, was only after due enquiry. He submitted that the present impugned order dated 22.8.2003 was without any notice, enquiry and hearing of the affected party and it is a unilateral order and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the order dated 18.12.1991 was set aside after a period of about thirteen years that too without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any opportunity and that too when the matter is pending before the competent civil courts, and hence such an order, cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments of the learned single Judges of this court reported in SRI BHAVANARISHI CO-OP. HOUSE BUILDING S O C I E T Y v . JOINT COLLELCTOR, R.R. DISTRICT and VELAGAPUDI SATYANARAYANA v . DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NALGONDA. He submitted that the passing the impugned order in favour of the Defence authorities after a lapse of about thirteen years, more particularly when they lost title before both the courts below and at the appellate stage, would amount to circumventing the orders of the competent civil court and the same cannot be allowed to sustain. He submitted that even if the order dated 18.12.1991 was passed under a repealed enactment, since certain rights have been created under the same, the same cannot be set aside without following the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the writ petitioners are the bona fide purchasers and hence their interests shall be protected. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent supporting the impugned order, submitted that the land in question is a Government land and that the earlier order dated 18.12.1991 passed by the then District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad implementing the sethwar was under an repealed enactment. He submitted that the Record of Rights Act, 1989 has not been enforced in Hyderbad District and by proceedings dated 28.2.1990 issued by the Government Hyderabad District has been exempted from the operation of Record of Rights Act and Section 13 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 repealed the provisions of the A.P. (T.A.) Record of Rights in Land Regulation 1358 Fasli and hence the order dated 18.12.1991 is null and void and hence as and when the same has been noticed by the authorities, the same can be set aside. He further submitted that the defence authorities are in occupation of the certain land even as per the case of the vendor of the petitioners and when that is the case, before passing the order dated 18.12.1991, the defence authorities ought to have been given notice and the said order is passed without any notice to the defence authorities and when the initial order itself is in violation of the principles of natural justice and that too passed by the District Revenue Officer, who has no jurisdiction and that the Mandal Revene Officer is the competent authority under the Act of 1971, the subsequent order passed after noticing the fraud in the earlier order, cannot be said to passed without notice. He submitted that the Defence Estate Officer has filed objection as early as in the year 1992 and if the proceedings are disposed of in the year 2003 by the Government, the delay cannot be attributed to the Defence Estate Officer. He submitted that as noted in the impugned order, the sale deed under which the vendor of the petitioner – society is said to have purchased the land in question, is a doubtful document and cannot be relied upon. He stated that there is no Sy.No.170/2 and as per the revenue records there is only Sy.No.170 and the same is being continued as on today. He submitted that the impugned order is passed against the vendor of the members of the petitioner – society and hence the present writ petition by the petitioner – society, which was registered after passing of the impugned order is not maintainable and no notice need be given and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the petitioners are alleged to be purchasers under different sale deeds executed in the year 1995. But particulars have not been furnished and there is also no approved lay out. He submitted that the said purchases were during the pendency of the suit and hence they are hit by principles of lis pendence. He also sought to contend that as per the G.L.R. entries relating to the cantonment area in Secundeabad, the land is defence land and the entries in the G.L.R. are conclusive. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 10. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for my consideration is whether the impugned proceedings No.B2/3601/95 dated 22.8.2003 passed by the Collector, Hyderabad District in setting aside the earlier proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad District No.B2/8431/91 dated 18.12.1991, is liable to be set aside in view of the violation of the principles of natural justice and when the matter is seized up by the competent civil courts? 11. From the above averments, the case of the petitioner – society is that its members have purchased different extents of land in Sy.No.170/2 of Thokatta Village Secunderabad under registered sale deeds during the year 1995 from one K.Sudhama and other legal heirs of original land lord K.Asha Baliah. Their case is that by virtue of the order dated 18.12.1991 the sethwar of their vendor was directed to be implemented and his name was also directed to be mutated in the revenue records and the said order was passed after due enquiry and after verification of records. The case of the respondents is that the sale deed under which the land in question was purchased, was a fabricated document and that there is no sub-division of Sy.No.170 of Thokatta village and the land in question is a Government Land and the District Revenue Officer, who passed the order dated 18.12.1991 has no jurisdiction to pass the order and since the vendor of the petitioners is not a party to this proceedings, the petitioners cannot contend that he has no notice and even as per the case of the petitioners, they formed into society in the year 2004 and the impugned order is passed in the year 2003 and no notice need be given to them and furthermore they purchased the property during the pendency of the suit filed by their vendor and hence their sales are hit by principles of lis pendence. 12. It is to be noticed that all the members of the petitioner – society have been made as parties and their case is that they purchased the different extents of land in Sy.No.170/2 during the year 1995 and that they formed into society during the year 2004. Here it is to be noticed that though they formed into society during the year 2004, their actual purchase is during the year 1995 and it is well settled that registration is a notice to public in general. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioners formed into society only during the year 2004 and hence as the impugned order is passed in the year 2003, they are not entitled to any notice, cannot be countenanced, as they are the interested and affected parties and it is well settled that before passing any order affecting the rights of a person, notice is mandatory. 13. From the material on record, it could be seen that the vendor of the petitioners filed a case against the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 15(2) of Record of Rights Reguation 1358 F to correct the records relating to the land in Sy.No.37/2(old) corresponding to new Sy.No.170/2 admeasuring Ac.7-27 guntas situate at Tokatta Village Secunderabd Mandal, Hydeabad District. From a perusal of the order in Case No.B2/8431/91 dated 18.12.1991 it could be seen that the District Revenue Officer by considering the averment of the petitioner therein that his father purchased the land from one Abdul Wahad under a registered sale deed dated 20th Aban, 1355 F. and that ever since the date of purchaser he has been possession and that when the military authorities tried to interfere with his possession, he filed W.P.No.12729/1989 and this court directed the military authorities to establish their right if they are so advised in a court of law and that as no rights have been established and on verification of the original sethwar of 1356 F, which is available with the Deputy Direct Survey and Land Records, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer Secunderabad to incorporate the name of the petitioner who is the successor in interest in the Revenue record and Deputy Director Survey and Land Records was required to supply a copy of the sethwar issued during 1356 Fasli to the Mandal Revenue Officer for effecting in the revenue records in the ensuring jamabandi to meet the ends of justice and delayed claim. To this case filed by the vendor of the petitioners, the defence authorities are not the parties and as per the impugned order, they filed objections in the year 1992. By the impugned order, the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 18.12.1991 has been set aside and findings with regard to genuineness of the entry of Sethwar in Respect of Sy.No.170/2 for an extent of Acs.7-27 guntas and its authenticity have been recorded. From a perusal of the entire order, it could be seen that no notice or any enquiry giving sufficient opportunity to the vendor of the petitioners is given. It is well settled that when certain rights have been created under an order passed by the District Revenue Officer, exercising quasi judicial functions, and when the same is sought to be set aside on the ground of jurisdiction and on other grounds, principles of natural justice have to be followed. From a perusal of the impugned order, before setting aside the order dated 18.12.1991, , no notice is given and no enquiry calling for the objections from the vendor of the petitioners was conducted and it can be said that the 1st respondent recorded unilateral findings, which cannot be sustained. It is also to be noticed that the contention of the respondents is that petitioners are not entitled