IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24459 of 2002 Between: 1 Pantham Venkatesh Kumar S/o Late Sri Sriramulu R/o Payakaraopet , Visakhapatnam District. 2 Pantham Rajyalakshmi D/o Late Sri Sriramulu R/o Payakaraopet , Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Enakonda Suryaprakash Rao S/o Padmaraju R/o Divili Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Gummella Vasuki Rani W/o Ravi Kumar R/o Divili Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 any appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third Respondent vide proceedings No. ROR/666/2000 dated -11-2002 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently suspend the operation of said order and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 24459 OF 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 12.11.2002, issued by the third respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, and to quash the same. According to the petitioners, they are the owners and possessors of an extent of Ac. 26.67 cents of land in Survey Nos. 32 to 34, 58, 60, 64 to 66 of Divili Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. The said land was bequeathed to them under a will executed by Pantham Raja Ratnamma. They had applied for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds and on the basis of the Will produced by them, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to them under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act’). While the matter stood thus, respondents 4 and 5 filed an appeal in the year 2001 before the second respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer claiming that they are also rightful holders of the land under the Will alleged to have been executed by Smt Raja Ratnamma bequeathing her properties in their favour and requested to cancel the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the petitioners. The Revenue Divisional Officer while rejecting the appeal directed all the parties to obtain orders from the Civil Court as to who were the legal heirs and the extent of the land to which they were entitled to and that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapuram, by endorsement dated 28.03.2001, directed to report before his office after obtaining necessary directions from the Civil Court. The petitioners state that despite a direction to approach the Civil Court by endorsement dated 28.03.2001, the unofficial respondents without working out their remedies preferred another appeal to the second respondent, who issued proceedings dated 28.02.2002 cancelling the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in their favour. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not issued any notice either before issuing proceedings dated 28.02.2002, duly cancelling the pattadar pass books and title deeds, or before issuing the impugned notice dated 12.11.2002 directing them to surrender the pattadar pass books and title deeds by the third respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent stating that respondents 4 and 5 filed an appeal under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Rules, 1978, before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, against the action of the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, in issuing pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioners, that the second respondent after giving notice to the petitioners and unofficial respondents, having examined the registered Will Deed dated 22.02.1991 and Codicil dated 29.06.1992 executed by Pantham Raja Ratnam in her life time, passed orders on 28.02.2002 directing the third respondent to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued to the petitioners and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds to the legatees as per the Will Deed dated 22.02.1991 and Codicil dated 29.06.1992 and, therefore, the third respondent issued the impugned notice to the petitioners directing them to surrender the pattadar pass books and title deeds granted earlier. It is further stated that the entries made earlier were on the basis of an unregistered Will Deed dated 27.12.21991 and not on the basis of a registered Will Deed dated 22.09.1991 and Codicil dated 29.06.1992 and, therefore, the action of the third respondent in issuing the impugned notice cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. Though notice has been served on the fourth respondent, none appeared. Insofar as the fifth respondent is concerned, though notice was sent, it has not been returned served. In the interest of the justice, the writ petition can be disposed of in the absence of the fifth respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that once the appeal was dismissed in the year 2001, question of filing another appeal and the same being entertained by the second respondent does not arise and, therefore, entertaining such an appeal and issuing impugned notice is illegal and arbitrary. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents contended that earlier, entries were made on the basis of an unregistered Will executed by Pantham Raja Ratnamma and the latest Will was a registered one executed by Pantham Raja Ratnamma and, therefore, the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has rightly held that the entries made earlier were wrong. Hence, the third respondent was justified in issuing the impugned notice to the petitioners directing them to surrender the pattadar pass books and title deeds. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the counsel and perused the impugned notice and the material available on record. Admittedly, the purported entries made in favour of the petitioners appear to be on the basis of an unregistered Will Deed but, whereas, the unofficial respondents preferred an appeal along with a registered Will and Codicil and, therefore, the revenue authorities felt that the entries must be made as per the registered Will Deed purported to be in favour of respondents 4 and 5. That is the reason why the second respondent had directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to work out their remedies, while rejecting the appeal. On the basis of an appeal filed by respondents 4 and 5, along with the registered Will Deed and Codicil, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 28.02.2002, cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued to the petitioners, pursuant to which, the third respondent issued the impugned notice directing the petitioners to surrender the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in their favour. However, the petitioners were not put on notice before passing the proceedings dated 28.02.2002 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned notice issued by the third respondent is fair and in consonance with the principles of the natural justice. Thus, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent is in gross violation of principles of the natural justice. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the matter is remanded to the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to verify as to whether the petitioners were put on notice while passing the proceedings dated 28.02.2002, duly cancelling the pattadar pass books and title deeds, pursuant to which, the impugned notice was issued. If no notice has been issued, the respondents shall conduct a fresh enquiry, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to all the interested persons and receiving their objections, if any. However, the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer shall dispose of the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 21st July, 2009 MD/USD