IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7119 of 2009 Between: Vemula Narayana Reddy S/o. Gopal Reddy R/o. 14-198, Kishtapur Village, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Medchal Mandal Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Village Revenue Officer, Kishtapur Hamlet of Medchal (V) & (M), Ranga Reddy District. 3 Smt. P. Vasumathi, D/o. P. Sarath R/o.8-2-268/D3, Rama Rao House, Beside Plot No.268, Aurora Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34. .....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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Memo No.B/5558/2008 dated 03-12-2008 of the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and also opposed to the provisions of the R.O.R. Act and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: G.P. FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: N.A. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner impugns the Memo dt.3.12.2008 issued by the Tahsildar, Medchal, the first respondent, through which he directed that the name of the petitioner and three others be removed from the revenue records and that name of third respondent be entered as pattadar and occupant in respect of Acs.5.00 of land in S. No.534 of Kishtapur Village, hamlet of Medchal Village and Mandal. The petitioner submits that no notice was issued to him before the impugned order was passed. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Notice was sent to the same address that was mentioned in O.S. No.289 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, wherein the third respondent herein figured as second respondent. Therefore, this Court feels that the notice is deemed to have been served on third respondent. The third respondent filed an application before the first respondent on 4.9.2008 stating that she purchased Acs.5.00 of land referred to above through registered sale deed dt.13.8.1993. It is also stated that she was issued pattadar passbook and title deed and continued possession over the land. She objected to the entries in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner and others. The first respondent discussed the matter at length and placing reliance upon the instructions dt.14.10.1999, issued by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, directed that the name of the petitioner and three others be removed and, in their place, the name of third respondent be entered in the revenue records. Even assuming that the third respondent has any valid right over the land, before any existing entry is altered in the revenue records, the affected persons are to be issued notice. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner exists in the revenue records and before any direction is issued for deletion of the same, he should have been put on notice. No such notice was issued to the petitioner. On this short ground, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the first respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and other affected parties and pass orders afresh on the representation made by the third respondent. No costs. ______________________ (L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 24.4.2009 bnr