HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO: 15352 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and declare the order passed by respondent No.3 in R.C.No.A2/3397/97 dated 17/01/2000 as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of land of an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.713/A, Thallampadu village, Khammam Rural, Khammam District. They are four brothers and their joint property was partitioned about ten years back and the property situated in Sy.No.713/A fell to his share i.e., an extent of Ac.2-00 of land. In the year 1990, S.C. Corporation sanctioned a loan to dig a well in the said land. He dug the will and erected electric motor to that well. The APSEB authority had given electric connection to the said motor bearing S.C.No.506 and the same was sanctioned on 25/11/1990. He raised commercial crops like groundnut, chillies, cotton in the said land up to 1996. In 1997, the Agriculture Department supplied mango saplings of Banishan variety with subsidy to ripe the mango garden. He paid the land revenue to the Government regularly and his name was incorporated in the revenue records as the owner and possessor of patta land. Respondent No.4 issued pattadar passbook and title deeds in his favour in respect of the land of Ac.2-00. The mango garden is aged about four years. He is also raising the internal crops like green gram, black gram etc. Surprisingly, he received an order from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, i.e., respondent No.3 in the month of January, 2000, directing respondent No.4 to cancel the pattadar pass book and title deeds granted in his favour on the ground that his late father Sri Sangaiah executed a gift deed in favour of respondent No.1 in the year 1983 for an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.713/A of Thallampadu village, Khammam District, which is the petition schedule land. It is his case that respondent No.1 is the appellant in the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 17/01/2000. Respondent No.3 had not issued any notice or initiated proceedings pertaining to the petition schedule land and no opportunity was given to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector on 11/02/2000 along with a separate petition seeking suspension of the order passed by respondent No.3. The appeal was neither numbered nor returned till date and no orders were passed. As the matter stood thus, respondent No.1 had tried to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, therefore, he filed this writ petition. This Court, while ordering rule nisi on 31/12/2001, granted interim direction to the respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land belonging to the petitioner in Sy.No.713/A having an extent of Ac.2-00 in Thallampadu village, pending further orders in W.P.M.P.Nos.19476 and 19477 of 2000. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent Nos.5 and 6 were impleaded by order dated 11/10/2004 in W.P.M.P.No.1739 of 2004. The impugned order says that the Superintendent of Police/the appellant before the Revenue Divisional Officer/the third respondent herein filed an appeal under Section 5 of A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds in respect of land in Sy.No.713 admeasuring Ac.2-00 situated in Thallampadu village of Khammam (Rural) Mandal, Khammam District, in favour of one Anthoti Sreenu (writ petitioner). As per the revenue records, Sy.No.713 admeasuring Ac.7-38 gts. of Thallampadu village is a patta land and stands in the name of Anthoti Sangaiah (father of the writ petitioner) and his name is continuously shown in pattadar column in the village pahani. Subsequently, an extent of Ac.5-13 gts. was sold away to others and an extent of Ac.0-25 gts. kept under road boundary. Later, the pattadar i.e., the father of the petitioner had executed a registered gift deed in favour of the Government of A.P. in the name of Superintendent of Police, Khammam, for departmental purpose, vide registered gift deed bearing No.243/83, dated 16/04/1983. But the registered gift deed which was in the name of Superintendent of Police, Khammam, has not been implemented in the revenue records for the reasons not known and the said land is in unauthorized possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. Basing on which, he obtained the pattadar passbook and title deeds. The possession of the petitioner over the schedule land is illegal and therefore, the pattadar pass book and title deeds issued in respect of the said land in favour of Sri A.Sangaiah have been cancelled and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam Rural, has been directed to take action and make necessary changes in the records and send the compliance report, and he has been also directed to report the staff members responsible for issue of pattadar pass books and title deeds and to initiate disciplinary action. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not been served with any notice before passing the impugned order in the appeal to which the petitioner is a party. The order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer reveals that no notice had been given. The averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that before passing the order by the Revenue Divisional Officer i.e., the third respondent, the petitioner has not been given any notice. He does not have any knowledge till the revenue officials came to the field to take over the possession of the land. Therefore, his case is that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also averred in the writ petition that aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector on 11/02/2000 along with a separate petition seeking suspension of the order passed by the third respondent pending the appeal, but the said appeal was neither numbered nor returned and till date the same is pending on the file of the Joint Collector i.e., the appellate authority. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Having regard to the averment made by the petitioner in the affidavit with regard to the pendency of the appeal, on 23/07/2007 the learned Government Pleader sought time for getting instructions as to whether the said appeal is pending or not. No further information is forthcoming in the matter. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of the petition schedule land, in respect of which the revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbook and title deeds and the S.C. Corporation granted the loan for developing the mango garden, the electricity authorities have sanctioned the service connection sought for by the petitioner and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The case of the first respondent is that the petition land was gifted in favour of the first respondent for departmental purpose by virtue of a registered gift deed, but the same was not incorporated in the revenue records. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking cancellation of the pattadar pass book and title deeds granted in favour of the petitioner and consequently, seeking rectification of the revenue records issued in favour of the first respondent, in the impugned proceeding the third respondent allowed the appeal which is impugned in the writ petition. The impugned order does not reveal as to whether any notice is given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner is the second respondent in the appeal and the Mandal Revenue Officer is the first respondent and no counter- affidavit has been filed by the other respondents except the first respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order is without notice and amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity to the parties to the writ petition. No order as to costs. ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 13th August, 2010 SKM