IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 8543 of 2001 Between: Golla Mallamma @ Chittaboina Mallamma, W/o.Golla Pochaiah, R/o.Gundlapally Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. rep.by Dist.Collector, Medak District, At:Sanga Reddy. 2 The Joint Collector, Medak District, At:Sanga Reddy. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Shivampet Mandal, At:Shivampet. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, Order or direction; particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dt.23.10.2000 in file No.F3/9910/96 and F3/34/ROR/97, passed by 2nd respondent, in so far as the subject land admeasuring Ac.8.00 gts. in Sy.No.143/2 of Gundlapally Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak Dist., including subsequent acts of official respondents. Pursuant to the said impugned orders as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and without jurisdiction and issue rule nisi and set aside the same, and be pleased to pass such further order/s as the Hon'ble Court may be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VENKAT RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 23/10/2000 in file No.F3/9910/96 and F3/34/ROR/97, passed by the second respondent, in so far as the subject land admeasuring Ac.8.00 gts. in Sy.No.143/2 of Gundlapally Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak Dist., including subsequent acts of official respondents pursuant to the said impugned orders as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and without jurisdiction. Along with the writ petition the petitioner also filed W.P.M.P.No.10845 of 2001 wherein she sought for an interim stay of the impugned proceedings to the extent of the land admeasuring Ac.8.00 gts. in Sy.No.143/2 of Gundlapally village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District, including the dispossession of the petitioner from the subject land. This Court by order dated 24/04/2001, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim suspension of the order as prayed for with a condition that the petitioner shall not alienate the lands until further orders. The second respondent/Joint Collector Medak at Sanga Reddy issued the proceedings in file No.F3/99/10/96 and F3/34/ROR/97, dated 23/10/2000, having exercised power under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.452.33 gts., i.e., in respect of the following lands: Sl.No. Sy.No. Total extent as per Sethwar Extent recorded as patta 1. 132 P.P. Acres 79.33 gts Acres 79.33 gts. 2. 143 P.P. Acres 193.27 gts. Acres 193.27 gts. 3. 244 P.P. Acres 407.21 gts. Acres 407.21 gts. ----------------------- Total Acres 452.33 gts. ----------------------- The operative portion of the said impugned order reads as under: “In the circumstances, this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. Accordingly, under the said provision the existing entries in the ROR and all related revenue records of current and earlier years showing the lands in Sy.NO.132 (extent Ac.79.33 gts.), Sy.No.143 (extent Ac.193.27 gts.) and Sy.No.244 (extent Ac.179.13 gts.) of Gundlapally village as patta lands are hereby ordered to be annulled. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shivampet is directed to modify the entries in regard to the nature and classification of the said lands so as to register them as poramboke in conformity with the Sethwar.” The case of the petitioner is that she purchased an extent of Ac.4.00 of land in Sy.No.143/2 of Gundlapally village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District, from one Mohanraj, S/o.Raghuraj Prasad under registered sale deed dated 24/06/1991 and also an extent of Ac.4.00 in the same survey number from the same vendor under a registered sale deed 01/07/1991. Her case is that pursuant to the said sale deed her name has been recorded in the revenue records and has been issued the pattadar passbook bearing patta No.242. She dug the bore well in 1991 and had the service connection on 31/12/1991 to cultivate the lands in question. While so, on 18/04/2001 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shivampet Mandal, visited the site and sought to take possession of the lands of the petitioner and put to auction on the ground that the Joint Collector passed the order on 23/10/2000 annulling the entries made in favour of the private parties and declared that the entire land i.e., an extent of Ac.452.33 gts. (Sy.No.132-extent Ac.79.33 gts, Sy.No.143-extent Ac193.27 gts. and Sy.No.244-extent Ac.407.21 gts.) is classified as Government poramboke. It is her case that on coming to know that the Mandal Revenue Officer has sought to dispossess her from the land in question, pursuant to the orders passed by the Joint Collector, she filed the writ petition on various grounds. One of the grounds raised in the writ petition is that the impugned proceedings have been issued without notice to the interested parties much less to the petitioner who is in actual possession and enjoyment of the subject land in the capacity of the owner and the same is violative of principles of natural justice. On behalf of the respondents a counter has been filed denying the averment of the petitioner of non-issuance of the notice to her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 9 of the Act no order can be passed by the authority by exercising the revisional power under Section 9 adversely affecting the rights of any person without an opportunity of making a representation. Section 9 of the Act reads as under: “9.Revision:-- The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation.” He also submits that clause (2) and (3) of Rule 23 of the of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for brevity ‘the Rules’) contemplate that the grounds on which the revision is initiated shall be communicated to the person or persons likely to be adversely affected and no such communication has been given to the petitioner. Rule 23 of the Rules reads as under: “23. (1) Every revision shall be in writing and setforth concisely the grounds thereof and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order or proceeding against which revision is sought. The revision petition shall bear a court-fee stamp of rupees five only. (2) In case, a suo motu revision is initiated, the grounds on which the revision is [initiated] shall be communicated to the person or persons likely to be adversely affected. (3) In case it appears to the Collector on examination that any such record, order or proceeding should be amended modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, the Collector may pass orders accordingly, after giving sufficient opportunity to the party or parties likely to be adversely affected to make written or oral representation before issue of orders. (4) The orders under revision shall be final and there shall be no further review by the Collector.” In response to the averments made in the counter-affidavit, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not only violative of the statutory provision i.e., proviso to Section 9 of the Act and also clause (2) and (3) of Rule 23 of the Rules and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Government Pleader contended that as per the records available with the Government the land in question is classified as a Government poramboke land, therefore, the petitioner has no right over the land in question. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Joint Collector/second respondent herein, it is stated that there was a vide publicity in the village on 18/04/2001. The auction could not be conducted since the villagers were not participated in the auction and on the request of some of the villagers the auction was postponed but never tried to take possession of standing paddy crop or sugar cane crop. The petitioner was informed not to raise any further crop in the suit land since it was converted into Government land by the Joint Collector, Medak. The Joint Collector, Medak, passed the orders on 23/10/2000 in case No. F3/9910/96 and F3/34/ROR/97 after hearing the petitioner and examined the points raised by them. Hence, the orders passed by the second respondent is as per law. From the said counter averments it is clear that the petitioner was not given any notice since it was not categorically averred that any notice was given to the petitioner and the petitioner was informed not to raise any further crop in the suit land. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was found to be in possession of the land in question. The provisions and the rules made under the Act referred to above contemplate the notice to be given to the affected parties. Further, in the impugned order, wherein the Government of A.P. is the petitioner and there are 9 respondents, the petitioner name is not found. Therefore, obviously the petitioner is not given any notice. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order is contrary to the proviso to Section 9 of the Act and also clause (2) and (3) of Rule 23 of the Rules and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside so far as the land held by the petitioner herself is concerned i.e., to an extent of Ac.8.00 in Sy.No.143/2 of Gundlapally Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District. It is open to the respondent authorities to issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 19th March, 2009 SKM