HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.13853 of 2002 Dated: 03-02-2011 Between: Ananthula Janga Reddy & Others …Petitioners AND Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District At Hyderabad and another. Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.13853 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer-second respondent in file Nos.B/4129 to 413/2002, dated 27.7.2002 and taking possession of the property on the even date. The case of the petitioners, which has not been controverted by filing any counter even after nine years, is that they have purchased the land in Sy.No.87/1 admeasuring Ac.4.38 gts., situated at Nagole Village, from its original owner and possessor Shamshur Rahman Nizami under a registered sale deed, dated 10.11.1966; that they purchased the land in Sy.No.87/6 to an extent of Ac.3.26 gts. from Palle Chandraiah under a registered sale deed, dated 7.10.1966; the land in Sy.No.87/2 admeasuring Ac.3.26 gts. was also purchased from its original owner and possessor Chittula Gandaiah under registered sale deed, dated 21.2.1966; and that the land in Sy.No.87/2 to an extent of Ac.3.25 gts. was purchased from Ravula Eswaraiah under registered sale deed in the year 1966. The said lands covered by the above sale deeds have been purchased by the petitioners after obtaining permission from the Tahsildar, East Division Taluq under Sections 47 and 48 of Tenancy Act, 1950. Thereupon the name of the first petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and since the date of purchased the first petitioner along with other petitioners and their family members have been in possession of the said properties. The properties are joint properties held by the first petitioner, his brother late Veera Reddy and petitioner No.4. The property of Veera Reddy was devolved upon the petitioners 2 and 3 by intestate succession. While so, second respondent issued notices on 21.5.2002 under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 calling upon the petitioners to show-cause within 15 days as to why the said lands should not be resumed in favour of the Government under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. The petitioners sought for time of one month for filing application since the documents pertaining to the property were not readily available. While so, another show- cause notice, dated 15.7.2002 was issued calling upon the petitioners to submit explanation on or before 27.7.2002 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioners submitted a detailed explanation to the second respondent on 27.7.2002 and they requested the second respondent to give opportunity of hearing so that they can engage an advocate to defend their case. But, however, the second respondent, on the same day, passed an order rejecting the request of the petitioners, which was received by the petitioners on the same day at 4.00 p.m. and that the possession of the property was also taken on the same day under a cover of panchanama. Hence, the present writ petition. Form-I notice issued by the second respondent, dated 15.7.2002 under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 which was enclosed along with the writ petition discloses that pursuant to the notice issued in Form-I, dated 21.5.2002 calling upon the petitioners to file documents and other connected records in support of their claim in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.87/6, a representation, dated 11.6.2002 was made by the petitioners requesting time for one month for filing of all the records available with them, but the petitioners have failed to submit all the records and oral or written arguments in support of their claim. Therefore, the case was posted for hearing finally on 27.7.2002 at 11.00 a.m. making it clear that if the petitioners fail to file the documents in support of their claim, case would be decided as per the material available on record. It is to be seen that the petitioners also filed reply to the notice, dated 15.7.2002 on the date of hearing i.e. on 27.7.2002, which is evident from the seal of Inward Section of second respondent receiving the detailed objections running into six pages filed by the petitioners. But, curiously, the impugned order was passed on the same day i.e. on 27.7.2002, which also clearly discloses that at 11.00 a.m. the petitioners were present before the second respondent and on filing of the explanation and on hearing of the contentions of the petitioners, the said order was passed. In the said reply filed by the petitioners, at para 16, the petitioners categorically pleaded that if the second respondent is not satisfied with the reply given by them, they may be given an opportunity to engage an Advocate in the matter to represent the facts on their behalf as they are illiterate persons and not conversant with the legal position. In spite of the same, the second respondent in a pre-judged manner passed the impugned order, which cannot be appreciated. It is on record that the petitioners have purchased the immoveable property after obtaining necessary permission from the Tahsildar. But whereas, the impugned order says that the permission obtained by the petitioners is not applicable to the Government lands and as such the permission granted by the Tahsildar has no validity in the eye of law and the purchases made by the petitioners are in violation of provisions of Act 9 of 1977 and therefore, the land shall be resumed to the Government. The manner in which the second respondent decided the case is not expected from a quash-judicial authority and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further when the cancellation order is made, necessarily the aggrieved person has to be given an opportunity for filing an appeal and only after expiration of the appeal period, the authorities can resume the property. But in the present case, the second respondent passed the impugned order and also resumed the possession of the property on the even date, thereby made the appellate remedy nugatory. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is set aside. If the respondents want to proceed further in the mater, they should give an opportunity to the petitioners and in the event if any adverse orders are passed, only after expiry of the period prescribed for filing an appeal, possession of the property can be taken over. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 03, 2011 Tsr.