THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.22826 of 2011 22nd September, 2011 Between :- Challa Prashanth Reddy and another .. Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, And others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.22826 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition has been filed by Challa Prashanth Reddy and Challa Sandeep Reddy seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, in passing the order in Case No.D1/22/2006 (File No.D1/1304/2006), D1/65/2010, dated 30- 4-2011 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice. 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 17-8-2011. The petitioners were permitted to take out notices to respondents No.4 and 5 by Regd.Post with Ack.Due and file proof of service. An order of status quo also has been granted on the even date vide WPMP No.27911 of 2011. 3. The background facts in nutshell leading to filing of this Writ Petition by Challa Prashanth Reddy and Challa Sandeep Reddy are:- Kummari Narsimhulu and Kummari Anjaiah are brothers. Kummari Anjaiah filed an application before the Tahasildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, for recording his name in the records to an extent of Ac.14.21 guntas in Sy.Nos.506 and 508 of Chattanpally village of Farooqnagar Mandal. His application came to be considered and accordingly entire extent of land in Sy.Nos.506 and 508 came to be mutated in his name. Assailing the order of Tahasildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, Kummari Balamm – respondent No.5 filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar, cancelled the order passed by the Tahasildar, Farooqnagar Mandal and directed for inclusion of the name of Kummari Balamma – respondent No.5 for half of the extent, by order dated 18-5-2009. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “In the instant case Sri Jangaiah, who is the original pattedar of the subject land died leaving his two sons, namely (1) Narsimulu the husband of the appellant and Sri Anjaiah respondent on the death of Sri Jangaiah, they both could succeeded to the property under subject with half share each unfortunately Sri Narsimulu died leaving his wife Smt.Balamma who is still alive without children. Even now she has no children, she is entitled for the half share of the property under subject property which could have come to the share of her husband, if he was alive but the respondent herein played fraud by colluding with the concerned authority and got the entire subject land mutated in his name through the impugned orders passed by the then Tahsildar, Farooqnagar on his file No.A/599/2005 which is quite contrary to provision of law. Under the circumstances and the fact as stated above, I am of the view that this is an amount of fraud played by the respondent herein and got mutated the subject land in his name in Form No.1 of ROR of Chatanpally village of Farooqnagar Mandal. Accordingly the appeal filed is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the then Tahasildar, Farooqnagar vide his office No.A/599/2005 are hereby set aside. The pattedar passbooks and title deed if any issued in the name of respondent are hereby cancelled. The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar is hereby directed to implement the subject lands, in the names of both appellant and respondent in equal shares, making half share each in each Sy.No. and send compliance within a week positively.” Subsequently, respondent No.5 – Kummari Balamma sold here share in favour of the petitioners by executing a registered sale deed dated 2-6-2010. Thereupon, the petitioners being purchasers of the land got their names mutated. Respondent No.4 – Kummari Anjaiah filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, on 11-8-2010. The Joint Collector in exercising the revisional powers under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 proceeded to allow the revision setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar, by order dated 30-4-2011. Hence, this Writ Petition. 4. The principal ground on which the Writ Petition is filed is that Joint Collector, despite the fact of bringing to his notice of alienation of the properties in favour of the petitioners, proceeded to dispose of the revision without putting on notice to the petitioners. 5. The 1st respondent filed counter. Nothing is stated in the counter that the petitioners have put on notice in the revision. 6. Indeed, the order in the revision indicates of the alienation of the property by Kummari Balamma – respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioners. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “In pursuance to the above orders the name of Smt.Kummari Balamma has been recorded as pattedar against Sy.No.506, 508, extent Ac.07.10 Gts of Chattanpaly (v) in the ROR. Subsequently Smt.Kummari Balamma has sold away the share of land i.e., Ac.0.710 Gts., insyno.506, 508 of Chattapally (v) in favour of Sri Challa Prashanth Reddy and Sri Challa Sandeep Reddy through Registered sale deed and the said Registered sale deed has been implemented in the ROR and Pattedar pass books, title deeds issued to the purchasers. Upon which Sri Kummari Anjaiah, respondent herein filed revision under Section 9 of the Act before this Court in case No.D1/65/2010. After having heard the arguments stay was granted on operation of order dt.18-5-2009 in case No.B/ROR/1914/2008 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar, till 30-9- 2010.” It is explicit from the above referred order, the Joint Collector was aware of the alienation of the property in favour of the petitioners. Despite the fact of the petitioners acquiring interest over the property, the petitioners were not put on notice in the above referred revision. The order impugned in the Writ Petition is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore the order passed by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order and remanding the matter to the revisional authority for fresh disposal after hearing the writ petitioners and respondents No.4 and 5. No order as to costs. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 22nd September, 2011 smr