IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8402 of 2009 Between: Namburi Venkata Gopala Panduranga Raju, S/o. Seetharama Raju R/o. 9-404/2, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam-43. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 3 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring as illegal and arbitrary the proceedings Rc.No.338/2008/Spl.RI dated 14.07.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to issue Title Deeds and Pattadar Passbook under ROR Act on the application dated 26.05.2006 made by the petitioner in respect of land of an extent of Ac.10.80 cents in S.No.180, Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8402 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner submitted an application dt.26.5.2006 before the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam, first respondent herein, with a request to issue pattadar passbook and title deeds in respect of Acs.10.80 of land in S.No.180 (old S.No.108) of Paradesipalem Village. Complaining that the application was not processed, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.25108 of 2007. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 5.3.2008 directing the first respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner. After the first respondent took up the matter, as directed by this Court, a notice was sent to the petitioner requiring him to appear on 25.3.2008 with necessary documents in his possession. The petitioner, however, did not appear on that day on account of ill- health. A telegram was issued to grant ten days time. Subsequently, the matter was listed for hearing on 4.7.2008. On this day, the petitioner did not appear on the ground that he did not receive the notice of hearing. The first respondent passed order dt.14.7.2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioner duly indicating the reasons therefor. The same is challenged in the present Writ Petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner traced his claim and title to the land under different documents and ultimately prayed for not only entering his name in the revenue records, but also for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds. Alleging that first respondent did not evince any interest in the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.25108 of 2007. In pursuance of the directions issued in the order of this Court dt.5.3.2008, the first respondent has taken prompt and immediate steps and fixed 25.3.2008 as date of hearing. The petitioner did not attend the enquiry on the ground of ill-health. In the impugned order it is mentioned that the petitioner was sent a notice dt.20.6.2008 fixing 04.7.2008 as date of hearing. The petitioner states that he did not receive that notice. The result is that there was no representation of the petitioner on that day. In case the petitioner remained absent, the only course left open to the first respondent was to dismiss the application on the ground of default. However, he proceeded to express his views on merits by making reference to several proceedings. It is something like a trial court dismissing the suit on merits even after observing that the plaintiff remained ex parte. Recording of findings, in the absence of the parties, would have their own effect on their rights, particularly in the context of pursuing the same in future. This aspect assumes greater significance where the proceedings are not adversarial in nature. In case the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the application, the simplest thing for the first respondent would have been to reject the application or to keep it pending duly indicating the reasons therefor. The various findings recorded by him in the order stare at the petitioner. Even now, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to putforth his case. The Writ Petition is therefore allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not turn up for enquiry before first respondent, he shall simply close the application without dwelling into the merits. No costs. ____________________ (L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 23.4.2009 bnr Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B.O) bnr