IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18856 of 2000 Between: Dodla Ranga Reddy and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR. N.SUBBA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings, dated 28.07.1999 cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record. Respondent No.3 purchased an extent of land of Acs.3.00 in Survey No.392 of Somarajupalli in an auction held by the Additional District Judge Court, Nellore on 05.02.1990 and the sale was confirmed on 16.04.1990. The sale certificate was issued in her favour in E.P.No.3 of 1988 in O.S.No.133 of 1975. The petitioners, who claimed that they are the owners of the property, approached respondent No.2 and obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. Respondent No.3 filed a petition on 20.08.1998 before respondent No.1, who treated the same as an appeal under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and after calling for the report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Indukurpet, allowed the same by his order, dated 28.07.1999. This order is assailed in this writ petition. One of the main pleas raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that respondent No.1 violated the principles of natural justice by not issuing notice and opportunity of hearing to them before passing the impugned order. Under Section 5(5) of the Act, against every order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer within the period prescribed therein. After examining the case, the appellate authority shall pass an order. This provision makes it evident that respondent No.1 acts as a quasi-judicial authority in deciding the lis between the two parties. Therefore, he is bound to give an opportunity of hearing to both the parties before passing an order. A perusal of the impugned order does not show that any notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order by respondent No.1. Though a specific plea has been raised with regard to absence of notice and opportunity to the petitioners, no counter-affidavits have been filed by any of the respondents denying the same. Therefore, I have no reason to disbelieve the plea of the petitioners that respondent No.1 passed the impugned order without issuing any notice to them, and set aside the decision of respondent No.2 given in their favour. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the petition/appeal filed by respondent No.3 after hearing the petitioners and respondent No.3 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th JULY, 2008. kvni