IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13999 of 1998 Between: Pedda Ramulu Goud, S/o Rayappa, R/o Katravpalli (V) , Makthal (M), Mahabubnagar Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal (M), Mahabubnagar Dist. 2 The Village Administrative Officer, Katravpalli (V), Makthal (M), Mahabubnagar Dist. 3 Sri Ramesh Goud, S/o Late Chinna Ramulu, Katravpalli (V), Makthal (M), Mahabubnagar Dist. 4 Sri Sudershan Goud, S/o Late Chinna Ramulu, Katravpalli (V), Makthal (M), Mahabubnagar Dist. 5 Sri Srinivasa Goud, S/o Late Venkataiah, Katravpalli (V), Makthal (M), Mahabubnagar Dist. 6 Sri Raghavender Goud, S/o Late Venkataiah, Katravpalli (V), Makthal (M), Mahabubnagar Dist. 7 Sri Rajagopal Goud, S/o Late Venkataiah, Katravpalli (V), Makthal (M), Mahabubnagar Dist. 8 Sri Rathnaiah Goud, S/o Late Venkataiah, Katravpalli (V), Makthal (M), Mahabubnagar Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the Proceedings No. C/ROR/480/98 dt:23.4.1998 issued by the 1st respondents and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and contrary to the principal of natural nustice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 23.04.1998 issued by the 1st respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. It appears, pursuant to an application submitted by the unofficial respondents herein i.e. respondents 3 to 8, who are said to be the sons of the brothers of the petitioner, seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records pertaining to the lands in Sy.Nos.93, 94, 111 and 114 situated at Katrevpally Village, Makthal Mandal of Mahabubnagar, stating that they have succeeded to the said lands from their fathers and have been in possession of the same, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 23.04.1998, according sanction for such mutation. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said proceedings and according to him, the aforesaid lands are ancestral properties and that he is having 1/3rd share in the said lands and no partition has taken place till date. It is his case that, in response to the notices issued by the 1st respondent, he appeared before the 1st respondent on 17.04.1998 and submitted an objection petition with regard to the claim of respondents 3 to 8, and thereafter again appeared on 22.04.1998, but he was not heard on any of those days. It is his grievance that the 1st respondent, having not given him an opportunity of hearing, in spite of his appearance, and having not considered the objection petition filed by him, issued the impugned proceedings, falsely recording that he did not appear on the above two dates and that he had mala fide intention of demanding money from the unofficial respondents for giving his statement. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned proceedings and other material made available on record. In the impugned proceedings, it is stated that the petitioner did not turn up before the 1st respondent on 17.04.1998 and 22.04.1998 and that, on enquiry, it was revealed that he had mala fide intention of demanding money from the unofficial respondents for giving statement with regard to their claim, and that, on perusal of the record, it was found that the unofficial respondents have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the lands of their respective shares as is evident from the entries made in ROR 1979-80 and 1989-90 and subsequent pahanies as owners and possessors of the said lands. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has not participated in any enquiry said to have been conducted by the 1st respondent. Such an enquiry conducted without knowledge to the petitioner shall not be relied upon for the purpose of deciding substantive rights of the parties. While it is the specific stand of the petitioner that he appeared before the 1st respondent on two specified dates and submitted his objection petition, there is no material for the 1st respondent to prove that the petitioner did not appear before him. Further, though it is admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by the official respondents that the petitioner submitted an objection petition, there is no whisper in the impugned proceedings with regard to that objection petition. Thus, the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned proceedings and on that ground alone the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, for conducting fresh enquiry and for passing appropriate orders as per law, after putting the petitioner as well as all other interested persons on notice and after hearing them and after recording the statements, if any necessary, in the presence of the petitioner and all other interested persons. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 11th June, 2009. IBL