THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16296 of 2003 Dated:02.12.2010 Between: Boya Sivappa. ...Petitioner And The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16296 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner assails the order of the Government, being Memo No.39790/Assn.IV(1)/98-21, dated 23.04.2003. By the said Memo the Government confirmed the order of the second respondent dated 06.02.1998, who in turn upheld the action of the third respondent in directing the subordinate revenue officials to evict the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.1.58 cents comprised in survey No.774-1 of Budili Village, Gorantla Mandal in Anantapur District (hereafter referred to as the petition schedule land). The petitioner occupied the petition schedule land. According to him, his family was in possession of the land for more than fifty years. On 02.11.1975 the fourth respondent assigned the land to the fifth respondent. Possession was, however, continued with the petitioner. In May 1995 the fourth respondent submitted a report to the Joint Collector informing that the petition schedule land and other lands in survey Nos.842-3 and 826-2 are not in possession of the assignees including the fifth respondent. By an order dated 06.10.1995 without issuing any notice the Joint Collector directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gorantla, to evict the encroachers. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the second respondent who confirmed the order. As mentioned supra, the petitioner was also unsuccessful before the first respondent. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not filed any counter affidavit even though the matter is pending for more than half a decade. The fifth respondent filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. His case is that he is a landless poor person. But, the land in the three survey numbers referred to hereinabove including the petition schedule land was allegedly assigned to him vide proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 02.11.1975. The land was also shown to him. He then obtained loan from the State Bank of India, Hindupur, in 1978 and Ananta Grameena Bank in 1991 and cultivating the same. The petitioner is a rich businessman doing business in groundnuts and sunflower. He managed the Village Karanam and started cultivating the petition schedule land. The then village officials played fraud on him and went on collecting cist. By reason of this, the fifth respondent cultivated the land belonging to Chowdeswara Swami Temple till 1994 for a period of nineteen years. The temple authorities evicted him from the land. He then raised a dispute before the revenue authorities, based on which, the Mandal Revenue Officer sent a report which led to direction issued by the Joint Collector. Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the fifth respondent and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) made their submissions. The second respondent, it is contended, heard the matter on 25.04.1997. As the records were not received, pronouncement of the orders was postponed. Thereafter, the second respondent pronounced the orders on 06.02.1998 without further hearing the petitioner. The Joint Collector did not issue any notice to the petitioner though he has been in possession of the land for more than twenty years. The Government Order does not contain any reasons, and therefore, unsustainable. The fifth respondent contends that as the petitioner is not entitled for assignment, even if he is in possession of the land it does not preclude the revenue authorities from assigning the land to the fifth respondent. The Village Karanam played fraud and has shown the land belonging to the temple, as a result of which, the fifth respondent could not cultivate the land which was assigned to him. According to the Counsel, the Commissioner and the Government considered all aspects of the matter, and passed orders confirming the proceedings of the Joint Collector. In the petitioner’s affidavit an allegation is made that the fifth respondent sold the land to Gummalapalli Somi Reddy. There is no specific denial about the same. Secondly, there is also no denial by respondent Nos.1 to 4 – especially respondent No.3, that the petitioner was not issued any notice by the Joint Collector before ordering eviction from the petition schedule land. These two are important factors which ought to weigh with the revisional authority as well as the Government. Curiously, the Government Order does not contain any reasons. The Courts have been repeatedly held that unless and until, revisional authority records proper reasons, it would not be possible to know the factors which weighed with the decision maker while accepting or rejecting the revision. There are disputed questions of fact as to whether the petitioner is a rich business person not entitled to assignment, whether the fifth respondent sold away the land assigned to him in 1975, whether the assignment could have been made to the fifth respondent when the petitioner is already in possession of the land in contravention of the Board Standing Orders and whether the Joint Collector conducted any enquiry before passing the order? All these matters require consideration. As respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not filed the counter affidavit nor produced the records, it is not possible for this Court to decide these issues. In view of the above, the impugned order of the Government is set aside, and the matter is remitted to them for fresh consideration after giving notice to the petitioner and the fifth respondent. This exercise may be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 02.12.2010 vs