IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 13041 of 2001 BETWEEN: 1 M. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Mukunda Reddy, R/o. Jangaon, Warangal District. 2 M. Sugunamm, W/o. Mukunda Reddy, R/o. Jangaon, Warangal District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jangaon Mandal, Warangal District. 3 M.Gopal Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, R/o. Jangaon, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring and setting aside the order dt. 14-2-2001 passed in Proc. Rc.No.E/1887/2000 on the ﬁle of the First Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction; Award costs and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR. J. VENKATESWARA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners herein challenge the order in proceedings bearing Rc.No.E/1887/2000 dated 14.02.2001 passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Jangaon, Warangal District, the ﬁrst respondent herein, whereby the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners were cancelled and the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Jangaon Mandal, Warangal District, the second respondent herein, was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter. 2. The averments made by the petitioners in their aﬃdavit are to the eﬀect that they are the owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.6.23 guntas and Ac.5.00 guntas situated in various survey numbers of Jangaon, Warangal District. According to them, these lands fell to their share pursuant to the partition eﬀected amongst the petitioners, Sri M. Gopal Reddy, the third respondent herein, and other coparceners. It is stated that pursuant to the said oral partition, the petitioners applied to the second respondent for issuance of pattadar passbooks under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. It is further stated that the second respondent acting upon their application issued pattadar passbooks under the provisions of the Act of 1971. 3. While so, it is alleged that the third respondent herein, being one of the coparceners holding an extent of Ac.11.30 guntas, ﬁled an application before the ﬁrst respondent seeking cancellation of the pattadar passbooks obtained by the petitioners. It is stated that the impugned proceedings dated 14.02.2001 were passed by the ﬁrst respondent in pursuance of the said application. 4. The impugned proceedings are challenged on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also stated that the second respondent had exercised jurisdiction under the Act of 1971 in favour of the petitioners after undertaking requisite enquiry and it was not open to the third respondent to ﬁle a frivolous petition seeking to disturb the same. 5. By interim order dated 29.06.2001, this Court suspended the operation of the impugned proceedings. 6. No counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by respondents 1 and 2. The third respondent ﬁled a counter disputing the entitlement of the petitioners as asserted by them in their aﬃdavit in respect of the subject lands. It is stated that they only had a 1/3rd share in the said property and that the remaining 1/3rd fell to the share of the third respondent and one Smt Y. Anasuya. Therefore, the third respondent claimed to be prejudiced by the action of the second respondent in issuing pattadar passbooks to the petitioners under the Act of 1971 and accordingly, ﬁled an appeal before the ﬁrst respondent. According to him, notice was issued to the petitioners on 31.01.2001 by the ﬁrst respondent calling upon them to appear before the said Officer on 09.02.2001. It is further stated that the petitioners appeared on that date and their statement was also recorded. According to the third respondent, the petitioners and Smt Y. Anasuya admitted that the lands were partitioned and that each sharer was in possession of his/her respective share. In consequence, the third respondent denied the contention of the petitioners that the impugned proceedings suﬀer from violation of the principles of natural justice. Copies of the notice dated 31.01.2001 issued by the RDO, Jangaon and the proceedings of the RDO, Jangaon recorded on 09.02.2001 were produced by the third respondent along with his counter affidavit. 7. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 14.02.2001 would show that the ﬁrst respondent entertained the application ﬁled by the third respondent, obviously in exercise of the appellate power conferred upon him under Section 5(5) of the Act of 1971. The ﬁrst respondent took note of the factual aspect that the subject land was jointly shared by three sets of parties and accordingly, all three sets were held entitled to due recognition of their rights under the Act of 1971. The first respondent, accordingly, recorded a finding that the second respondent had failed to observe the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1971, while exercising jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, he cancelled the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject land and directed the second respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry for splitting up of the joint pattas among all the shareholders, duly aﬀording suﬃcient opportunity of hearing to all the interested persons. 8. In the light of the proceedings placed on record by the third respondent, it is clear that the sheet anchor of the petitioners’ case that they were denied notice and opportunity of hearing constituting a violation of the principles of natural justice stands destroyed. The record clearly shows that the petitioners participated in the proceedings before the ﬁrst respondent and conceded that they had no objection to the passing of the impugned proceedings. In view of the same, I ﬁnd no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Keeping in mind the fact that the property rights of the parties are involved and suﬃcient delay has already been occasioned owing to the pendency of this writ petition before this Court for all these years, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to take necessary action in the matter in pursuance of the impugned proceedings dated 14.02.2001, duly giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J November 7, 2008 DSK