THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2386 OF 2005 Dated: 16-12-2010 Between: Thakur Ram Singh & Others …Petitioners AND The Revenue Divisional Officer & Land Reforms Tribunal, Jangaon Mandal, Warangal District & 2 others Respondents. This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2386 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer & Land Reforms Tribunal-first respondent herein in proceedings No.E/1118/2004, dated 11.1.2005 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. There is no necessity of going into all the details. According to the petitioners, they are all landlords holding various extents of agricultural lands in various villages of Jangaon Taluk of Warangal District. They have been declared as non-surplus holders by an order, dated 14.11.1983 passed by the primary Tribunal under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture) Holdings Act, 1973 (for short ‘Act’). While that being so, it appears, a representation was made by Communist Party of India (Marxist), Jangaon Division Committee, Warangal District, dated 15.9.2004 stating that the petitioners are holding surplus lands and certain information was suppressed and therefore, the matter may be taken up for enquiry. In pursuant to that, an enquiry was taken up and by the impugned proceedings, dated 11.1.2005 the Land Reforms Tribunal-first respondent directed one T.Laxman Singh and the Director, M/s. Shraddha Project Pvt. Ltd. to immediately stop construction activities until further orders with a further direction to the Sub-Registrar, Jangaon to stop registrations involving Sy.Nos.153, 191, 193, 202, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 & 212/2, situated at Nellutla Village of Lingala Ghanpur Mandal until further orders and till completion of the case. According to the petitioners, the order passed on 14.11.1983 in C.C.Nos.1747, 1852 and 1986/JNG/75 attained finality. If the respondent- authorities are anyway aggrieved by the said order, the authorized officer could have taken the matter in appeal and further revision before this Court. They have not done so and therefore, the said order had attained finality. After more than 21 years, on the application purported to have been filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) on 16.9.2004, the impugned order is passed under the guise of conducting some enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are cases and cases and if the respondents are aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal on 14.11.1983, it is always open for them to file an appeal and further revision before this Court, but they have not done so. The respondents could not have entertained an application filed after more than 21 years by a political party which is not directly aggrieved by the orders passed by the authority under the law. Even if any enquiry was taken up on the representation filed by the political party, it could have done only after issuing some notice to the petitioners. No such notice was given and as a preventive measure, the petitioners were directed not to take up construction with a further direction to the Sub-Registrar not to register the lands in question. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent strenuously contended that fraud vitiates everything and therefore, there is nothing wrong in taking up an enquiry even after 21 years by the Revenue Divisional Officer for the purpose of finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the political party. Be that as it may, since the order passed on 14.11.1983 by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Warangal has attained finality and no appeal or revision is filed, the respondent-authorities even if they want to take up any enquiry on the representation purported to have been made by Communist Party of India (Marxist), they could not have passed such an order as a preventive measure. There is no law, which empowers them to pass such an order. The Sub-Registrar cannot be stopped from registering the lands unless and until they are declared and notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. In this case, admittedly no such notification has been issued. The Revenue Divisional Officer could not have directed the petitioners to stop the construction undertaken by them in their own lands, particularly without issuing any notice. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed is in gross violation of principles of natural justice apart from being contrary to law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, this order does not preclude the respondent-authorities from taking appropriate legal action as par law. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J DECEMBER 16, 2010 Tsr