THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 242 of 2008 Oral order: Assailing the orders dated 26.10.2007, passed by the respondent No.1, namely the Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, ordering mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 as pattedars in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question, as being illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner states that his father late Ramachandra Reddy, purchased an extent of Acs. 200.00 in Old Sy. No. 96/6 corresponding to New Sy. Nos. 154 to 159 and Acs. 150.35 guntas in Old Sy. No. 96/7 corresponding to New Sy. Nos. 160 to 168 of Aminpur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, under two separate agreements of sale deeds dated 02.01.1954 from late Sri Syed Mustafa Hussain Saheb. After the death of his father, his vendors, executed registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioner in the year 1963. The petitioner states that ever since 1954, his father and after him, is in peaceful enjoyment and possession of the said lands. While so, the petitioner states that upon noticing that in the revisional survey, the revenue authorities, have erroneously shown the extent of land owned by him as Acs. 91.01 guntas instead of Acs. 200.0 in Sy. Nos. 154 to 159 and Acs. 137.39 guntas instead of Acs. 152.35 guntas in Sy. Nos. 160 to 168, in the revenue records, he entrusted the work of correction/rectiﬁcation of the said mistakes to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by executing a General Power of Attorney dated 13.08.1999 in favour of respondent No.4, authorizing him to act on his behalf for getting the said correction/rectiﬁcation before the revenue authorities and courts. The petitioner states that he also entered into an agreement with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 13.08.1999 agreeing to give 40% share in the land that he may get after correction/rectiﬁcation of the revenue records, but on conditions that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would bear the entire expenditure that would be incurred for getting the correction/rectiﬁcation and that they would get the said work done within a period of one year. The petitioner states that after due enquiry, the revenue authorities added an extent of Acs.75.16 to the holding of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 02.04.2004 by assigning new Sy. Nos. 1170 and 1171, and that his name was also included in the revenue records against the said land and that pattadar pass book and title deeds were also issued on 07.04.2004. As respondent Nos. 4 and 5 could not get the work relating to correction/rectiﬁcation of the revenue records done within a period of one year, as agreed to in the agreement, the petitioner states that they are not entitled to any percentage in the land which the petitioner got pursuant to the correction/rectiﬁcation. However, the petitioner states that he came to know that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the strength of the GPA executed by him on 13.08.1999, executed sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 alienating an extent of Acs. 33.07 guntas out of Acs. 75.16 guntas that was added to his holding pursuant to correction/rectification of revenue records. On the strength of the said sale deeds, respondent Nos. 6 to 8 applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. Respondent No.3, namely the District Collector, Medak, vide proceedings dated 29.01.2007 directed respondent No.2, namely the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Sangareddy, to instruct respondent No.3 not to implement the sale deeds submitted by respondent Nos. 6 to 8 for mutation as they were not executed under authenticated registered GPA, and no powers were given to the GPA holders for alienating the land and to hand over the possession. However, the petitioner states that respondent Nos. 6 to 8 without impleading the petitioner and suppressing the proceedings dated 29.01.2007 of respondent No.3, ﬁled writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 12631, 15318 and 15479 of 2007, seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to consider their applications and eﬀect mutation without reference to the Circular dated 30.10.2006, and a learned Judge of this Court, by separate orders dated 02.07.2007, 23.07.2007 and 31.07.2007 disposed of the said writ petitions directing respondent No.1, namely the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, to complete the enquiry already initiated and issued pattadar pass book/title deeds to the petitioner therein (respondent No.6), after considering the objections, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In pursuance of the orders dated 02.07.2007, passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 12631, 15318 and 15479 of 2007, respondent No.1, passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2007, mutating the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the land, and he being the owner and person interested in the land, respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order, ordering mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in the revenue records, ought to have issued notice to the petitioner. He submitted that simply because the High Court had directed issuance of pattadar pass books/title deeds, it did not mean that pattadar pass books/title deeds were directed to be issued directly to respondent Nos. 6 to 8 without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to the owners of the land and the persons interested therein. He submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, has violated the provisions of Section 5(3) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, which provides for issuance of notice in writing to all persons interested in or to be affected by the mutation. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in C. Pandurangam v. MRO, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District[1]. He submitted that respondent No.1 had not applied his mind to the facts of the case, and in fact, has not even considered the proceedings dated 29.01.2007 of respondent No.3-District Collector, and has passed the impugned order, merely on the basis of the of the orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions ﬁled by respondent Nos. 6 to 8. He submitted that the petitioner has only executed GPA in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, he did not execute any sale deeds in their favour nor authorized them to execute sale deeds alienating the land. The GPA executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is only for a limited purpose, i.e. to apply for correction/rectiﬁcation of the revenue records, which has erroneously shown less land holding than what the petitioner really possessed. In fact, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were required to get the said correction/rectification done at their own cost and within a period of one year, and in such an event, the petitioner agreed to give 40% share in the land, which may be added to his holding upon correction/rectification. Since respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not get the correction/rectiﬁcation eﬀected within one year, they were not entitled to any share in the land. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, ordering mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 8, who purchased the land from respondent Nos. 4 and 5, be set aside, because respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had no right whatsoever to sell the land to respondent Nos. 6 to 8. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ﬁled counter, while respondent No.4 and 5 and respondent Nos. 6 to 8 ﬁled counter aﬃdavit along with vacate stay petitions. The petitioner also filed reply-affidavits to the said counters. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue reiterating the counter averments submitted that GPA executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has not been cancelled by the petitioner, and it is still in force. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the basis of the said GPA executed the sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 6 to 8, and as the request of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 for mutation of their names, was rejected, they ﬁled writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 12361, 15318 and 15479 of 2007, and on the basis of the orders passed by this Court in the said writ petitions, which set aside the order of respondent No.3, respondent No.1 had passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2007. No speciﬁc notice is required to be given to the petitioner. In fact, respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order, has issued general notice, which was received by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are GPA holders of the petitioner. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court is not applicable to the petitioner, because at the time when respondent No.1 passed the impugned order, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in B.G. Laxman (died) per L.Rs. v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District [2], was holding the ﬁeld. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend that no notice was issued by respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order. He submitted that whether respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were lawful owner of the land in question and whether they had any right or interest therein, and thereby entitled to alienate the land, are questions, which respondent No.1 is not competent to decide. He submitted that as against the impugned order, passed by respondent No.1, namely the Tahsildar, the petitioner has got an eﬀective alternative remedy by way of appeal before respondent No.2, namely the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, and against his order, there is a remedy of revision before respondent No.3, namely the District Collector, but the petitioner without availing the said eﬀective alternative remedies, has straight away approached this Court. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 contended that the writ petition raises disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the petitioner apart from executing GPA, has entered into supplemental agreement, agreeing to give 40% share in the land, which he may get upon correction/rectiﬁcation of the revenue records. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have spent a lot of money for getting the mistakes rectiﬁed in the revenue records. In fact, the petitioner sold 60% of the land that was added to his land holding after correction/rectiﬁcation of the revenue records, and as such, it can be said that the remaining 40% land, was to be given to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. He submitted that the sale deeds executed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be declared bad in this writ petition. In fact, respondent No.1, before passing the impugned order, has issued notices. Against the impugned order, the petitioner has got an eﬀective alternative remedy, and the petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order, which does not suﬀer from any legal inﬁrmities. He thus prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 8 submitted that respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are purchasers of the land in question, and they having purchased the land, applied for mutation to respondent No.1, and on coming to know that respondent No.3, had issued Circular dated 30.10.2006, providing that the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer concerned, would be the authority appropriate to consider application for mutation, they ﬁled writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 12631, 15318 and 15479 of 2007, and this Court, disposed of the said writ petitions declaring the said Circular as ultra vires the provisions of the Act, and while declaring so, directed respondent No.1 to conduct enquiry and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds to the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.1 in compliance of the said order, considered the cases of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and ordered mutation of their names in the revenue records, and no interference is called for therewith, and more so when it does not suﬀer from any inﬁrmities. He submitted that the petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal, but the petitioner without availing the said remedy, has ﬁled this writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 8. The facts which are not in dispute are, the petitioner is the owner of the land in question. As in the revisional survey, the revenue records, reﬂected less holding that what the petitioner had held, he executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, whereunder, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were required to get the revenue record corrected/rectiﬁed. A supplemental agreement was also entered into, whereunder, the petitioner agreed to give 40% share in the land that may be added to his holding upon correction/rectiﬁcation of the revenue records, subject to the condition of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 bearing the entire expenditure and getting the said work done, within a period of one year. Admittedly, upon correction/rectiﬁcation of the revenue record, an extent of Acs. 75.16 guntas was added to the holding of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, it appears respondent Nos. 4 and 5 sold the 40% of the share in the land that was added to the land holding of the petitioner. On the basis of the said sale deeds, respondent Nos. 6 to 8 applied for mutation under Section 5(3) of the ROR Act. The petitioner on coming to know about the said sale deeds executed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and the request made by respondent Nos. 6 to 8 for mutation, approached respondent No.3 contending that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not get any right and title in the land, and as such, they are not entitled to execute the sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 8. Thereupon, respondent No.3-Collector addressed letter on 29.01.2007 directing the 2nd respondent to instruct the 1st respondent not to implement the sale deeds submitted by respondent Nos. 6 to 8. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in not taking any action on their application for mutation and questioning the Circular dated 30.10.2006, ﬁled writ petitions, and a learned Judge of this Court, disposed of the said writ petitions holding as follows: Section 5(3) of the Act requires MRO to conduct enquiry before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights in the manner prescribed by the Rules. Rule 18(2) of the Rules requires the intimation of acquisition of rights under Section 4 of the Act to be given in Form VI-A appended to the Rules. In this case, petitioner though requested for mutation, in eﬀect asking amendment of record of rights, in which case, the application ought to have made under Form VI-A of the Rules. As and when such an application is made, MRO has to conduct enquiry in accordance with Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules after issuing notice of enquiry in Form VIII, and pass appropriate orders for issue of pattadar passbooks/title deeds or otherwise under Section 5(4) of the Act. Now that the enquiry into the application made by the petitioner has been initiated by the MRO, enquiry may be completed and PPB/TD may be issued in favour of the petitioner, after considering the objections, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pursuant to the above order, the record produced by the respondents, discloses that respondent No.1 while directing respondent No.1 to implement the above orders, required respondent No.1 to follow the provisions of the ROR Act while granting pattadar pass books/title deeds strictly without deviation and also examine the matter in the villages and adjacent pattadars. In fact, in the above order, directed respondent No.1 to consider the objections, if any. However, respondent No.1 without issuing any notice to the petitioner, who is the owner of the land, has issued the impugned proceedings, ordering mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 8. The petitioner questioned the said order not only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, but also on other grounds. It is the contention of the petitioner that time was the essence of the agreement, since respondent Nos. 4 and 5 could not get the correction/rectiﬁcation in the revenue records done within a period of one year, they are not entitled to any share, much less 40% share in the land that was added to his holding after correction/rectiﬁcation of the revenue records. Whether or not, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were entitled to get 40% share in the land that was added to the holding of the petitioner after correction/rectiﬁcation of the revenue record, but the fact remains, they have alienated 40% of the share in the land that was added to the land holding of the petitioner upon correction/rectiﬁcation of the revenue records. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the General Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was for a limited purpose i.e. to the extent of getting the revenue records corrected/rectiﬁed, and the said GPA, never authorized them to sell the land nor did the petitioner executed any sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and as such, the alienation made by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 6 is bad. Whether GPA executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is valid, and whether respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are entitled to any share in the land or whether they are entitled to alienate the same in favour of respondent Nos. 6 to 8, are questions which cannot be gone into by this Court. In fact, the petitioner has neither cancelled the GPA and the consequential agreement, executed by him in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 nor had taken any steps to cancel the same. Be that as it may, from the undisputed facts, it becomes clear that the petitioner is the owner of the land, and he being the owner and person interested in the land, and any amendment in the revenue records, would aﬀect his right, having regard to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in C. Pandurangam v. MRO, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. Dist, was entitled to issuance of notice. The Full Bench considered the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in B.G. Laxman (died) per L.Rs. v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, ran contrary to the plain language of Section 5(3) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, and held as under: An order passed against a person whose name already exist in the Record of Rights without giving him notice of the proposed amendment and eﬀective opportunity of hearing is liable to be declared nullity on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, which represent the most important facet of the rules of natural justice. It need no emphasis that the rules of natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purely administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any individual. Therefore, it is clear that the requirement of issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or aﬀected by the amendment is dependent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rules 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that it is respondent No.1, namely the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, who is the authority competent to mutate the names/make amendments in the revenue records. The objections, which the petitioner sought to now raise in the writ petition against the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, namely Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, could not be brought to his notice by the petitioner because no notice was issued to him, and as a result thereof, the impugned order, came to be passed without considering the objections of the petitioner, who being the owner, is a person interested in the land. Though against the impugned order, the petitioner has remedy of appeal, but since the same has been issued without notice to the petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice, I am of the considered opinion that instead of asking the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, the ends of justice would be met, if the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The impugned order passed by respondent No.1, shall be treated as show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the objections, which he sought to raise in the writ petition, in his explanation to the show cause notice. The petitioner shall submit his explanation to the show cause notice within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereupon, respondent No.1 shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner, and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned, pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 14th August, 2008. KSR [1] 2007 (6) ALD 348 (FB) [2] 2003 (1) ALT 3 = 2004 (6) ALD (NOC) 412