IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 64 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/11/2008 in WP NO : 21063 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Imam-E-Zamana Mission, Rep. by its President, Salim Peerbhoy, S/o.Peer Mohammed Haji Ghulam Ali, R/o.6th Floor, Maruthi Heights, Banjara Hills, Road No.1, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 64 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy ) This writ appeal is filed against order, dated 27.11.2008 in W.P.21063 of 2001, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against proceedings dated 13.7.2001 of respondent No.1. We have heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. The appellant is in possession of an extent of Ac.10-00 in Sy.No.199/27 and 199/29 of Kapra village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 30.10.1994 and 24.11.1994 from one Mitra and others. According to the appellant, his predecessor-in-title purchased the said land under registered sale deed dated 27.5.1978 and the vendor under the said transaction had earlier purchased the said property on 27.2.1968. The appellant claims that before the property was originally sold, the holders of the property viz., Mandali Hanmantha Rao and Mandali Viswanatham, obtained permission from the Tahsildar, Medchal, under Sections 47 and 48 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, on 8.11.1967. Subsequent to the purchase of the property by the appellant, it applied for mutation of its name in the revenue records and the Mandal Revenue Officer, by his proceedings dated 2.6.1999 amended the record of rights register by entering the appellant’s name as pattadar. Respondent No.1, however, issued show cause notice dated 13.07.2001 in purported exercise of his power under Section 9 of A.P. Record of Rights and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, “the 1971 Act”) on the ground that the appellant is in possession of the Government land and therefore, it is called upon to show cause why the mutation made in its favour shall not be cancelled. Feeling aggrieved by the said notice, the appellant filed W.P.No.21063 of 2001. The main plank of attack of the impugned show cause notice before the learned single Judge was that even assuming that the land purchased by the appellant was a Government land, unless proceedings are initiated and appropriate orders passed under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, respondent No.1 is denuded of the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings to exercise suomoto power under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. The learned Single Judge, however, without going into the said aspect dismissed the writ petition by permitting the appellant to file an explanation to the show cause notice. The appellant, therefore, filed the present writ appeal. Having carefully heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for revenue, we are of the view that unless the appropriate authority under the provisions of the 1977 Act, initiates proceedings and resumes the land after notice and hearing the objections of the appellant, respondent No.1 cannot exercise suomoto revisional jurisdiction to cancel mutation proceedings issued in favour of the appellant in the year 1999. As the issue pertains to jurisdiction of respondent No.1, the learned Single Judge ought to have decided the case on merits. As we are satisfied that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction until and unless the land is declared to be a Government land and that the appellant is in lawful possession, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we allow WP No.21063 of 2001 and set aside the proceedings dated 13.7.2001 impugned in the writ petition. Liberty is however given to respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings for resuming the land to the Government before initiating any proceedings under the provisions of the 1971 Act. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ appeal is allowed along with the writ petition. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy 3rd February, 2009 Nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 64 of 2009 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy ) 03.02.2009