THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21060 of 2011 ORDER: The basic thrust of the arguments of Sri C.Malla Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is of violation of principles of natural justice. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order in W.P.No.7313 of 2009 dated 19.8.2009 (a writ petition filed by the 4th respondent), was passed behind the back of the petitioners herein. Likewise, the 2nd respondent had passed the impugned order dated 23.6.2011 without putting the petitioners on notice, and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. On the other hand Sri A.Rajasekhara Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent, would contend that grant of pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioners in 2004 was a fraudulent exercise; an application was filed by the petitioners for grant of duplicate pass books, even though no pattadar pass books were issued in their favour earlier; and, in as much as the very issuance of duplicate pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioners is void ab initio, no useful purpose would be served in setting aside the impugned order, and remanding the matter back to the 2nd respondent for his consideration afresh. In view of the divergent stands taken by counsel on either side, and in the light of the serious allegations of fraud made against the petitioners by the 4th respondent, the matter would have necessitated further examination after counter affidavits are filed by the G.P. for Revenue (Telengana Area) on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Sri A.Rajasekahara Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent. However both Sri C.Malla Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Sri A.Rajasekahara Reddy, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent, would agree that, instead of keeping the matter pending on the file of this Court, it would suffice if the impugned order were to be set aside, and the matter remanded back to the 2nd respondent for his consideration afresh in accordance with law within a specified time frame. As the counsel on either side have agreed to this course of action, I consider it appropriate to pass the following order: (1) the impugned order dated 23.6.2011 is set aside for violation of principles of natural justice; (2) the matter shall stand remanded back to the 2nd respondent who shall, within two weeks from today, put the petitioners and the 4th respondent on notice, and give them opportunity of being heard, fixing the time within which any reply, which they may seek to make, shall be submitted; (3) on receipt of a reply from the petitioners and the 4th respondent herein, the 2nd respondent shall examine the matter and pass orders in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter; (4) in case no reply is filed by the petitioners or the 4th respondent within two weeks from the date on which they receive the notice, the 2nd respondent shall proceed to pass orders in accordance with law within four weeks from the date on which two weeks time limit, specified to submit reply, expires. With the above observations the writ petition stands disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 09-08-2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o ASP