IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6482 of 2001 Between: A.Animi Reddy @ Guru Hanimi Reddy. … Petitioner And The Agent to Government (District Collector), Khammam and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri R.Kameswara Rao. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Social Welfare for R.1 to R.3. None for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 5-3-2001 passed in CMA No.8 of 2000 by respondent No.1 conﬁrming order dated 26-6-1986 passed by respondent No.2. Heard Sri R.Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner claimed to have purchased Ac.4.16 guntas of land in Survey No.260 of Morampally Banzar village from the father of respondent No.4 in the year 1957 under an agreement of sale; that he paid sale consideration and has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property; and that when the father of respondent No.4 ﬁled a petition before respondent No.2, the same was taken up as case No.271 of 1972 under Section 3 of the A.P. (Scheduled Area) Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959. It is further stated that respondent No.2 by order dated 27-9-1972 held that the said sale transaction is contrary to the said Regulation; that the petitioner then ﬁled CMA No.40 of 1972 before respondent No.1, which was allowed by order dated 21-1-1983 on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 13-8-1979 and remanded to respondent No.2. It is the case of the petitioner that after remand, respondent No.2 passed order dated 18-2-1983 holding that since the petitioner holds less than ten acres of land, he was entitled to the beneﬁt of G.O.Ms.No.129 and, hence, he cannot be evicted. The petitioner’s case is that respondent No.2 issued notice on 6-6-1986 to the petitioner to appear before him on the ground that in view of setting aside of G.O.Ms.No.129 by the High Court, he is liable for eviction. Respondent No.2 passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. Though the petitioner claimed that a copy of the order was not served on him, in view of the direction given by this Court in Writ Petition No.8124 of 1986 he ﬁled an appeal before respondent No.1 with a delay condonation petition. As the delay was not condoned, he was again constrained to ﬁle Writ Petition No.18574 of 1987, which was allowed on 23-6-1989 with a direction to respondent No.1 to entertain and dispose of the appeal on merits. The appeal was accordingly registered as CMA No.8 of 2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that without serving notice on him or his counsel, respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal by order dated 5-3-2001, which was served on him only on 13-3-2001. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement contained in the order passed by respondent No.2 that notices were issued to both the parties on 30-6-2000 and got served on the petitioner, is not correct. He also stated that neither the petitioner nor his counsel received any notices except the notice received by his counsel in July, 2000. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 it is averred that notices were issued to both the parties and served on the counsel for the petitioner on 8-6-2000 for the hearing ﬁxed on 9-6-2000; that notice sent to respondent in the appeal i.e., Sri Borra Veera Swamy, was returned by the postal authorities stating that the said person died; that both the parties were absent on 9-6-2000; that fresh notices were issued posting the matter on 18-8- 2000 and got the same served on the petitioner and his counsel; that as both the parties were absent, the case was posted to 13-10-2000, 27- 12-2000 and 2-2-2001; and that on 2-2-2001 also both the parties were absent. As the petitioner failed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent-Sri Borra Veeraswamy on record, the appeal was dismissed as abated. In the reply aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner he categorically denied the above-mentioned averments contained in the counter-aﬃdavit. In paragraph 5 it is stated that the petitioner’s Advocate at Khammam informed him that the practice prevailing before respondent No.1 was that when respondent No.1 is not present in his oﬃce on the date of hearing, a further notice of adjournment will be issued after adjourning the case; that if respondent No.1 is present, the matter will be adjourned to another date and no further notice will be issued; and that in this case on the date of ﬁrst adjournment respondent No.1 was not present and no further notice was received by him. It is further stated that as the death of Sri Borra Veera Swamy was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, he could not inform his counsel and, accordingly, his legal representatives could not be brought on record. In paragraph 7 of the reply aﬃdavit the petitioner denied the allegation that the appeal was posted on 9-6-2000 and notices were served on him and his counsel. He also asserted that no notice was served on him and it was informed by his counsel; that he remembered to have received one notice for hearing ﬁxed on 18-8- 2000; and that no further notices were received by him. Though in the order passed by respondent No.1 it is stated that notices were served through the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer concerned, the dates on which the notices were served have not been mentioned. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, who is said to have served the notices on the petitioner, has not ﬁled any aﬃdavit. At the hearing, the respondents have not produced the record to show that notices have actually been served either on the petitioner or his counsel. In the absence of the material to show that notice was served either on the petitioner or his counsel, the order of respondent No.1 cannot be sustained. The petitioner speciﬁcally pleaded that as he had no knowledge of the death of Sri Borra Veera Swamy, he could not take steps to implead his legal representatives. In view of these facts, I feel that interest of justice would be met if respondent No.1 reconsiders the case on merits by giving the petitioner an opportunity of impleading the legal representatives of Sri BorraVeera Swamy apart from impleading respondent No.4, the brother of Sri Borra Veera Swamy in the appeal before respondent No.1. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner shall ﬁle an appropriate application for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased-Sri Borra Veera Swamy, if he had left any, and also respondent No.4 in the appeal before respondent No.1 within a period of six weeks from today. On ﬁling such application by the petitioner, respondent No.1 shall allow the same and decide the appeal on merits after hearing all the parties. --------------------- ------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:06-08-2008 MNR