IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 570 of 2003 Between: 1 Matta Satya Rao S/o Late M.Sanni Rao R/o Chinnamushidivada, D.No.1/19, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Matta Babu Rao S/o Late M.Sanni Rao R/o Chinnamushidivada, D.No.1/19, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Matta Sanyasi Rao S/o Late M.Sanni Rao R/o Chinnamushidivada, D.No.1/19, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Matta Ravi Kumar S/o Late M.Sanni Rao R/o Chinnamushidivada, D.No.1/19, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Matta Ram Babu S/o Late Appa Rao R/o Chinnamushidivada, D.No.1/19, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6 M.Suryudamma W/o Appa Rao alias Appalaswamy R/o Chinnamushidivada, D.No.1/19, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 7 G.Kasulamma W/o Sanyasi Rao R/o Chinnamushidivada, D.No.1/19, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Madal Revenue Officer, Chinna Gadili Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Sri Varaha Lashminarsimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam Simhachalam Rep. by its Executive Officer, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. .....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 any appropriate writ order or direction preferably a writ in the Nature of Mandamus declaring that the order of the Revenue Officer in AIAC No.2/96A dt: 14.8.1996, in so far as it relates to the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal apart from being violative of fundamental principles of nature justice and unenforceable and that the petitioners are entitled to deal with the lands more fully described in the schedule which is of an extent of Acres 10 Sy.No.275/1C situated in Adiviaram Village, Visakhapatnam District and the respondents have no jurisdiction to interfere with the said rights in any manner. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.570 OF 2003 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim title and possession in respect of Ac.10.00 cents of land situated in Sy.No.275/1C of Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam District. It is not in dispute that Adivivaram Village is an Inam village and is governed by the provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’). The petitioners claimed that their ancestor by name Sanni Babu was granted a patta (Patta No.209-A) in respect of the land in question by Vizianagaram Samsthanam in the year 1938 and was in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying the necessary taxes till his death. Thereafter the petitioners herein continued in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. However, since the 3rd respondent Devasthanam attempted to dispossess the petitioners without there being any justifiable reason, the petitioners herein approached the Mandal Revenue Officer of Chinna Gadili Mandal for grant of a ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act. As the said application of the petitioners was not considered, the 5th petitioner herein filed W.P.No.6931 of 1996. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 4.4.1996 with directions as under: In view of the fact that the applications filed by the petitioner for grant of ryotwari patta under the Act are pending consideration for a long time, I direct the respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, in any event, before the end of June, 1996. Pending disposal of the applications filed by the petitioner for grant of patta by the 1st respondent, the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. It is alleged by the petitioners that in spite of the order of this Court in W.P.No.6931 of 1996 the 2nd respondent - Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinna Gadili - failed to pass any order, but in the meanwhile on 09.10.2002 the 3rd respondent Devasthanam attempted to dispossess the petitioners forcibly from the land in question. When the petitioners raised a protest stating that their application for grant of patta under Section 7 of the Act was still pending before the 2nd respondent, they were furnished a xerox copy of the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer said to have been passed on 14.8.1996. From the said order, the petitioners came to understand that their application for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act along with other applications made by some other claimants was disallowed by the 2nd respondent by a common order dated 14.08.1996 in AIAC.No.2/1996. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order of the 2nd respondent dated 14.8.1996 insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein is arbitrary and illegal apart form being violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. It is primarily contended by the petitioners that the impugned order dated 14.8.1996 which was passed without any notice to them and without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under Section 7 (1) of the Act is null and void apart from being violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. It is further contended that since the said order was passed by the 2nd respondent without application of mind to the merits of the claim of the petitioners and the rights vested in them, the same is liable to be declared as arbitrary and illegal on that ground also. Despite notice, no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1and 2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent Devasthanam though the claim of the petitioners for a ryotwari patta was opposed on various grounds, the fact that the impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioners could not be disputed. However, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Devasthanam vehemently contended that since an alternative remedy of Appeal is available under Section 7 (2) of the Act as against the impugned order, the petitioners cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel, while placing before this Court a copy of the common order dated 28.02.2007 in W.P.No.9196 of 1998 and etc., wherein the validity of patta granted in favour of the 3rd respondent Devasthanam in respect of the land situated in Vepagunta Village was under challenge, submitted that since the petitioners herein are also similarly situated, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioners to prefer Appeals against the impugned order and the writ petition does not deserve consideration on merits. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the availability of alternative remedy is not a bar since admittedly the impugned order, which was passed without notice to the petitioners, was in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in MARIAMMA ROY vs. INDIAN BANK & ORS.[1]. While relying upon a decision of this Court in S.V. NARASIMHAM v. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER[2], it is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that any order passed under Section 7 of the Act without notice to the person having interest in Inam land which is the subject-matter of the enquiry is not binding on them. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the above said view expressed by the learned Single Judge was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in SRI VARAHA LAXMI NARASIMHA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM vs. S.V. NARASIMHAM[3]. However, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Devasthanam that Civil Appeal No.1524 of 2008 preferred by the Devasthanam as against the judgment of the Division Bench was allowed by the Supreme Court by order dated 27.2.2009 and the matter was remitted back to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam for fresh consideration of the claims of the parties therein in regard to the disputed lands. Be that as it may, so far as the controversy between the parties before this Court is concerned, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to go into the larger issue relating to the effect of the order passed under Section 7 of the Act without service of notice on the persons interested as mandated under Rule 3 of the Rules made under the Act. As noticed above, the impugned order disallowing the claim of the petitioners herein was admittedly passed without notice to them. A perusal of the impugned order also shows that the 2nd respondent failed to consider the claim of the 5th petitioner independently and disallowed the claim by a common order without application of mind to the rights vested in the petitioners. It is also apparent that no sufficient reasons were assigned for rejecting his claim. The law is well-settled that absence of reasons is one of the grounds for judicial review since the failure of the quasi-judicial authority to assign reasons would result in violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, since the impugned order was passed without notice to the claimants, the impugned order being in violation of principles of natural Justice is liable to be set aside on that ground also. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the writ petition cannot be maintained in view of the availability of alternative remedy under the Act is concerned, I am of the opinion that impugned order having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is a nullity and therefore there is no justification to compel the petitioners to avail the remedy of Appeal. For the very same reason and in the absence of any material to disbelieve the specific plea of the petitioners that they came to know of the impugned order only on 10.10.2002, I do not find any substance in the further objection raised by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the petitioners cannot be granted any relief on the ground of laches. Accordingly, the impugned order so far as it relates to the ten acres of land situated in Sy.No.275/1C of Adivivaram Village claimed by the petitioners herein is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider AIAC.No.2/1996-A insofar as it relates to the claim of the petitioners herein afresh after due notice to them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such exercise is completed and the rights and title claimed by the petitioners herein in respect of the land in question are finalized, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the exercise of their rights of title and possession in respect of the land in question in any manner whatsoever. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.03.2009 gbs [1] 2008 (4) APLJ 22 (SC) [2] 2002 (1) APLJ 89 (HC) [3] 2008 (4) APLJ 123 (DB) (HC)