IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7691 of 2008 Between: R.K. Township Promoters (Private) Limited, A Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at D.No. 8-3-944/7, 2nd Floor, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Rep by its Managing Director M. Mala Kondaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, at Attapur, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. 3 The Tahasildar, Samshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Case No. L/337/75, dated 18-3-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVAS DAMMALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 7691 of 2008 Order: The petitioner-Company states that it has purchased the lands in an extent of Ac.11.03 guntas and Ac.11.32 guntas in Survey Nos.104 and 109 respectively, situated at Kothwalguda village, Samshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from its original owners under different registered sale deeds. Immediately after purchase of the said lands, they applied for mutation of its name in the revenue records, and the 3rd respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Samshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, after conducting an enquiry, issued necessary proceedings ordering to mutate the name of the petitioner-Company in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, who has no jurisdiction, has issued the impugned proceedings dated 18.03.2008, cancelling the entries made by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question, and that too without issuing any notice. Hence, it filed the present writ petition. This Court, on 11.04.2008, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim orders in W.P.M.P. No. 10112 of 2008, and directed the learned Government Pleader for Revenue to file counter affidavit in the matter. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that the impugned proceedings are passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner. In view of the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent, cancelling the entries made by the 3rd respondent in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question, is without notice to the petitioner, the same is liable to be set aside, and since the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing it, I am not inclined to go into the question as to whether the 2nd respondent has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, and leave it open for the petitioner to agitate the same before the authority concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 18.03.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, are set aside. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the ground of jurisdiction before the 2nd respondent, in case notice is issued by the 2nd respondent for the proposed action. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 17.06.2008 Ksr/Nsr