IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:12222 of 2001 Between: Galam Vala Raju S/o.Late Narayana R/o.Marrigudem (Village),Chandrugonda (Mandal) Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govternment of A.P Social Welfare(LTR.2) Dept., Rep.by its Secretary Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 Agent to Govt Khammam. 3 Special Dy.Collector (TW) Paloncha Khammam District. 4 Mandal Revenye Officer Chandrugonda (Mandal) Krishna District. 5 Bythi Pashappa S/o.Late Rajulu R/o.Marrigudem (Village) Chandrugonda (Mandal) Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. M.M.M.SRINIVASA RAO FOR MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 23.05.2001 issued by respondent No.1. The case of the petitioner is that his father late Narayana purchased the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 on 26.02.1960 from Sri Laxmudu and during his lifetime, he was in possession of the said property and after his death, the petitioner is continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same and that after the death of the vendor Sri Laxmudu, his illitum son-in- law, namely, late B.Rajulu, made a complaint against the petitioner’s possession, on which, respondent No.3 initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Land Transfer Regulations and passed order dated 09.07.1985 for eviction of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner filed CMA.No.26 of 1985 before respondent No.2, who in turn allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter to respondent No.3 by order, dated 19.01.1987 for fresh enquiry on the following aspects. i) That the order of the Special Deputy Collector (TW) is silent about the cultivators column right from 1963. ii) That the Special Deputy Collector(TW) has not examined the attesting witnesses to the document of sale transaction took place on 26-2-1969 and iii) That he has not conducted elaborate enquiry to conclude that the document is anti-date. After holding enquiry, respondent No.3 vide his order, dated 05.01.1988 rejected the complaint and held that the provisions of the Land Transfer Regulations were not violated. The appeal ﬁled by respondent No.5, Son of B.Rajulu, who is the alleged son-in-law of Sri Laxmudu, before respondent No.2 was allowed. The revision petition ﬁled by the petitioner against the said order of respondent No.2 was dismissed by respondent No.1. Questioning this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me order, dated 31.07.2008, wherein this Court in an identical case, in which, respondent No.5 is common, set aside G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 23.05.2001 issued by respondent No.1 with the following observations. “Insofar as the possession is concerned, the primary authority has clearly held that the revenue records goes to show the name of the petitioner in the revenue records for the year 1960 i.e. prior to regulation 1/70 which came into force with eﬀect from 03.02.1970. The Agent to the Government while setting aside the ﬁnding of the primary authority with regard to the possession of the petitioner, observed that as per the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer the pahanies were forged. Admittedly, the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer was not at all furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner was not all given any opportunity with regard to the alleged report and without furnishing the report and without furnishing copies of the so called forged entries, the conclusion arrived at by the Agent holding that the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer is correct is without any basis and against the principles of natural justice. I am of the opinion that when the Agent to the Government is hearing the appeal exercising the powers of quasi Government, he has to independently consider and dispose of the appeal based on contentions and averments made in the appeal, and he cannot set aside the order of the primary authority simply relying on the report said to have been submitted by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer beyond the back of the petitioner and without furnishing the copy of the so called report to the petitioner. Having regard to the facts of the case, the order of the appellate authority-Agent to Government in CMA.24 of 1994, dated 16.10.1998, as conﬁrmed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.50, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, dated 23.05.2001 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Agent to the Government, Khammam for reconsideration and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner with regard to his possession as on the notified date.” On a careful perusal of the material on record, I am satisﬁed that the transactions in respect of which orders were passed by the hierarchical authorities are identical and except the change in the purchasers, all other facts and nature of transactions are alike. Therefore, the above- reproduced reasoning of this Court in Writ Petition No.12333 of 2001 is equally applicable to the case on hand. For the same reasons, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to respondent No.2 for re-consideration and dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and respondent No.5. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni