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. 5781 of 2002 Between: Smt. Lakshmi Devi, died per L.R., Smt. Durga Devi, W/o. Kamal Kishore, R/o. 19-3-1018, Shamseergunj, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department Secretary Bldg,. Hyderabad. 2The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Joint Collector, R.R. District. 3The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R . R, District. 4The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad Mandal, R.R. District. 5Kanjarla Yellamma W/o. not known, R/o. Himayatnagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, R. R. District. 6K. Narsimha, R/o. Himayatnagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, R. R. District. 7Gudem Pantaiah, S/o. not known, R/o. Himayatnagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, R. R. District. 8Gudem Venkateshawar, R/o. Himayatnagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, R. R. District. 9M. Bal Raj R/o. Himayatnagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, R. R. District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or orders one in teh natue of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records on the file of 1st respondent in memo No.51977/Assn.V.2/98-16, violation of Principles of natural justice and against the article --300 A of constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.DHANANJAI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5781 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to call for the records relating to Memo No.51977/Assn.V.2/98-16, dated 05.03.2002, on the file of 1st respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, the predecessor-in-interest Smt.Lakshmi Devi and her husband Poonamchand originally purchased the lands admeasuring Ac.2.23 gts., Ac.2.22 gts. and Ac.1.25 gts. covered by Sy.Nos.151/1/1, 151/7/2 and 151/6/1 respectively situated at Himayatnagar village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from different owners under different registered sale deeds, and eversince the said purchase, they were in possession and enjoyment of the same till their death. After the demise of Smt.Lakshmi Devi, who died on 01.10.2000, the petitioner herein has become the absolute owner of the said lands by virtue of testate succession. 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 for restoration of 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 the original assignees or legal heirs of original assignees. Aggrieved thereby, Smt.Lakshmi Devi 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, Smt.Lakshmi Devi 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, Smt.Lakshmi Devi filed revision before the 1st respondent-Government, who through its memo dated 05.03.2002, 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 case on hand is of purchase of assigned lands by Smt.Lakshmi Devi and her husband from the original assignees. According to the petitioner herein, the original purchasers Smt.Lakshmi Devi and her husband purchased the subject lands as landless poor and in good faith. Apart from that, it is 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 a lapse of 30 years and, therefore, the orders passed by the revenue authorities are liable to be set aside. Firstly, the order passed by the primary authority i.e., the 4th respondent herein was an ex parte order, as no notice of any kind was served on Smt.Lakshmi Devi or her husband. This fact is not denied by the unofficial respondents. The appellate authorities and the revisional authority have not taken note of this fact. Even, basing on the evidence, there is no categorical finding that Smt.Lakshmi Devi and her husband were served with notices and in spite of service of notice, they have not availed the opportunity and remained ex parte before the primary authority. Secondly, with regard to the plea of Smt.Lakshmi Devi raised before the revenue authorities that she purchased the subject lands as landless poor and in good faith, basing on the evidence, there is no finding recorded by any of the revenue authorities in the orders passed by them that Smt.Lakshmi Devi and her husband are not landless poor and they have not purchased the subject lands in good faith. Further, the revenue authorities, except saying that Smt.Lakshmi Devi has not placed any records with regard to her plea of landless poor and that she purchased the subject lands in good faith, have not conducted any enquiry as required under the law for the purpose of holding as to whether Smt.Lakshmi Devi and her husband were landless poor at the time of purchase of subject lands and whether they have purchased the subject lands in good faith. Thus, unless a categorical finding is recorded on the basis of evidence collected by the revenue authorities, no finding as such could be recorded. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the primary authority i.e., respondent No.4 and as confirmed by respondents 1 to 3 are liable to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to respondent No.4-Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for conducting enquiry afresh into the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and passing appropriate orders as per law. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 03.06.2009 v v