IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NOs. 8448 AND 15171 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO : 8448 of 2004 Between: 1 Govindu Pochaiah S/o Veeraiah R/o Rangam Pet, Warangal, Warangal District 2 Govindu Viswanadham S/o Veeraiah R/o Rangam Pet, Warangal, Warangal District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Governemnt of Andhra Pradesh rep by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Chief Commissioner Land Administration and Urban Land Ceiling Government of Andhra Pradesh Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Special Officer (C&A), Urban Land Ceilings, Warangal, 4 The District Collector, Warangal District Warangal 5 The Ambetkar Stone Cutters Association Warangal rep by President, Matangi Cheeralu S/o Vushalu R/o Rangampet, Warangal 6 Osmania Graduates Association, rep. by its Secretary, Dr. T.V. Gopala Chary R6 is impleaded as per court order dt. 31-9-2005 in WPMP 20987 of 2005 .....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 more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandmaus declaring the proceedings No. A2/2801/2002 dated 29-04-2003 of the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, in violationof Principles of Natural justice and in violation of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere wtih thepeaceful possession and enjoyment ofthelands of the petitioners in Sy. No. 757 of Rangam Pet, Hanamkonda, Warangal District Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR CEILING AND WRIT PETITION NO : 15171 of 2004 Between: 1 Nallale Sudarshan S/o Late Ramaswamy R/o Kapuwada Hanamkonda 2 M. Manikya Prabhu S/o Lingaiah 54 R/o Near Goshamahal, Hyderabad 3 M. Nanda S/o Lingaiah R/o Near Goshamahal, Hyderabad 4 Gunda Namah Sivaya S/o Mukthi Lingam R/o Warangal 5 Kurapali chandra Mouli S/o Ramayya R/o Kasibugga, Warangal ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Chief Commissioner Land Administration And Urban Land Ceiling, Governemnt of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad 3 the Special Officer (C&A), Urban Land Ceilings, Warangal 4 The District Collector, Warangal District Warangal, 5 The Ambetkar Stone Culture Association Warangal rep by President Matangi Cheeralu S/o Vushalu R/o Rangampet, Warangal .....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 more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. A2/2801/2002 dated 29-04-2003 of the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioners in Sy. No. 757 of Rangampet, Hanamkonda, Warangal district Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : W.P.NOs. 8448 AND 15171 OF 2004 COMMON ORDER: The order dated 29.4.2003 of the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceilings, Warangal, the 3rd respondent in proceedings No. A2/2801/2002 is assailed in these two writ petitions on the ground that the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the lands in Sy.No. 757 of Rangampet, Hanmakonda, Warangal District. As the core facts are identical in both the writ petitions, the facts in W.P.No. 8448 of 2004 are set out as illustrative. The petitioners’ father Veeraiah was the owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.4-06 guntas in Sy.No. 757 of Rangampet, Hanmakonda, Warangal District. He filed a declaration in the year 1976 under Section 6 of the Act. The 3rd respondent, after enquiry under Section 8 (4) of the Act, in C.C.No. A1/4346/76, determined the above declarant as non-surplus holder. The orders passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 8 (4) of the Act had become final in 1976. The father of the petitioners died in 1994 leaving behind the petitioners and two other brothers. Thus the brothers continued in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No. 757. Thereafter they made an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanmakonda for issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The Mandal Revenue Officer, after due enquiry, issued the pattadar pass books and title deeds to the petitioners. Later they made an application to the 3rd respondent under Section 26 (1) of the Act seeking permission to dispose of the land in question. By proceedings dated 3.7.1998 the 3rd respondent informed the petitioners that the State does not wish to exercise the first option to purchase the land in Sy.No. 757 in an extent of 6450 square yards. According to the petitioners, since a week prior to the institution of the writ petition, the members of the 5th respondent-society were trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No. 757. On an enquiry by the petitioners from the local Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioners learnt that the 3rd respondent had passed an order dated 29.4.2003 cancelling the earlier order under Section 8 (4) of the Act and had directed the local Mandal Revenue Officer to allot the land to the members of the 5th respondent-society. In para-3 of the writ affidavit the petitioners specifically assert that they received no notice or any orders either from any of the official respondents prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 29.4.2003 of the 3rd respondent. In para-5 of the writ affidavit the petitioners reiterate that the impugned order was passed without any notice to the petitioners who are legal heirs of the original declarant Sri Veeraiah and therefore the order is nonest and inoperable. The impugned order of the 3rd respondent emanates pursuant to a representation by the 5th respondent dated 10.10.2002 claiming that the members of the 5th respondent- society were quarrying and leveling stones in the said land since a long time. By the impugned order, the 3rd respondent concluded that the occupation of the land in Sy.No. 757 by LB College, Warangal is illegal, the college should be evicted and the land be regularized in favour of schedule caste families. The 3rd respondent further directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to take action for regularization of the land in favour of schedule caste families. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit admitting that the father of the petitioners Veeraiah filed a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act in respect of an extent of Ac.4-06 guntas of land in Sy.No. 757, which was registered as CC No. A1/4346/76. The Verifying Officer reported, after enquiry, that the land was specified as agricultural land in the master plan. Taking into consideration the nature of the land as per the verification report, a draft statement had been issued on 31.1.1977 and the file was closed on 14.4.1977, as the provisions of the Act do not apply to land classified as agricultural land in the master plan. The counter –affidavit disclaims knowledge of the death of Veeraiah and to the petitioners being the legal heirs of Veeraiah. The 3rd respondent also disclaims any knowledge about the issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land in Sy.No. 757. However, the 3rd respondent admits to have issued a letter dated 3.7.1988 to the effect that the State is not willing to exercise the first option to purchase the land in Sy.No. 757. In defence of the impugned order, the 3rd respondent in the counter states that the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration in a communication in Ref. No. Spl. UC1/2145/97, dated 24.5.2002 had directed to reopen all the cases of the land covered by Sy.No. 757, determine the surplus land and take possession of the land as per law. As the present case is one of the cases so directed to be reopened and as the case was closed at the stage of Section 8 (3) of the Act, the 3rd respondent reopened the present case also and passed the impugned order. This is the broad defense. It requires to be noticed that despite the specific assertion in paras 3 and 5 of the writ affidavit that no notice was issued either to the original declarant or to the petitioners who are legal heirs of Veeraiah before passing the impugned order, the counter-affidavit chooses not to respond to the specific allegations. This conduct of the State officers needs to be strongly deprecated. When a specific allegation of violation of fair opportunity is pleaded in a proceeding before a High Court of Judicature, it is the bounden duty of every litigant, more so of the State and its officers to plead correct facts and if a procedural error or vital error had occurred, it is the duty of a State to acknowledge the error. Such is a Dharma constitutional governance. The deponent of the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents has fallen from these standards expected of an officer of the State. This Court hopes and trusts that the 1st respondent will consider taking appropriate administrative measures to train and equip officers of the State to conduct themselves in accordance with the minimum standards of fairness. The silence in the counter-affidavit in the context of the specific allegation in the writ petition that the impugned order was passed without any notice of opportunity must be considered an admission of this allegation on the principle of non-traverse. Since by the impugned order the 3rd respondent considered the extent of Ac.4-06 guntas in Sy.No. 757 to be vacant land, subject to the provisions of the Act and since the said decision adversely impacts the petitioners with civil consequences, no such determination could have been made without notice to the petitioners. As the order has been passed without such a notice or opportunity, it violates the principles of fairness. As a consequence, the impugned order must perish and is accordingly quashed. Since the impugned order has been issued in transgression of well established and fundamental principles of administrative law viz., that no order adverse to a citizen must be passed without affording an opportunity and thereby engendered to avoidable litigation and for the further reason that the 3rd respondent had avoided responding to the specific allegations in the writ petition that the order was passed without any notice of opportunity, this Court considers appropriate to allow the writ petitions with costs. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable by the 3rd respondent to the petitioners (i.e., Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the petitioners in each writ petition), within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dt.22.4.2008 KR 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Chief Commissioner Land Administration and Urban Land Ceiling Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Special Officer (C&A), Urban Land Ceilings, Warangal, 4 The District Collector, Warangal District Warangal 5. 2 CCs to 6. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}