IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 529 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16/03/2009 in WP NO : 25491 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 P. Manohar, S/o. Late Sri Palle Chittaiah R/o. H.No. 18-8-296-301, Uppuguda, Kandikal, Hyderabad. 2 P. Shankaraiah S/o. Late Sri Palle Chittaiah R/o. H.No. 18-8-296-301, Uppuguda, Kandikal, Hyderabad. 3 P. Kande Rao S/o. Late Sri Palle Chittaiah R/o. H.No. 18-8-296-301, Uppuguda, Kandikal, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue (UC.IV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer & Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. Shakunthala Bai W/o. Late Narahari Rao R/o. 23-5-444, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the order, dated 16.03.2009 made in WPMP No.33323 of 2008 in WP No. 25491 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge dismissing the relief of suspending the GO Ms. No. 1333 Revenue (UC.IV) Department dated 13.10.2007 issued by the first respondent herein, observing that it is not even pleaded by the appellants that they have filed any declaration under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, but on the other hand, it is the predecessor in title of the third respondent that declared the land and she, in turn, obtained the benefit of regularization of the surplus land. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners, who are appellants in this Writ Appeal, are in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.2.38 guntas in Sy. No. 7 and 8 of Kandikal village and Mandal, Hyderabad District, in the capacity of protected tenants of the said land. It is also stated that the first respondent has issued GO Ms. No. 1333 Revenue (UC.IV) Department dated 13.10.2007 regularising an extent of Ac. 1000 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 7 and 8 without issuing notice to them, in violation of the principles of natural justice and also the provision of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. It is further contended that when the third respondent intends to change user of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes, it is mandatory on the part of the respondents to put them on notice. The learned Single Judge having been not satisfied with the contentions raised by the petitioners in the above Miscellaneous Petition, dismissed the same, aggrieved by which, the present Writ Appeal is filed. There is no dispute that the unofficial respondent is the owner of the land and the appellants are the protected tenants, who were issued tenancy certificates under the provisions of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. That apart, the pahani patriks also show the appellants as cultivating tenants and the name of the respondent No.3 is reflected as owner of the land. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that crops were being raised in the lands and pursuant to the application filed by the owner of the land – respondent No.3 for change of user of the land, the authorities ought to have issued notice to the appellants calling for objections before passing any orders, which is mandatory under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act and without complying the provisions of the Act, GO Ms. No. 1333 dated 13.10.2007 cannot be sustained. Basing on the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents in W.P. No. 1005 of 1996, which was disposed of by order dated 24.4.2000, it is contended that the appellants are in possession of the land. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that since the GO Ms. No. 1333 Revenue (UC.IV) Department dated 13.10.2007 has been issued under Sec. 20(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 exempting the land from change of user i.e. from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose, hence, the question of issuing notice to the appellants herein would not arise for the reason that they are only protected tenants and the third respondent is the owner thereof. It is true that the pahani patriks show the names of the appellants as tenants and the unofficial respondent No.3 as the owner of the land and the yield was paddy and other crops. In view of the fact that the appellants contend that the impugned G.O. was isused without putting them on notice and as both the appellants and the third respondent are claiming the land as owner and protected tenants, we are of the opinion that the Competent Authority ought to have issued notice to the occupants before passing the order more particularly when change of user of the land from agricultural to non- agricultural purposes is involved. A perusal of the impugned G.O. does not specify as to the issuance of notice to the appellants herein. Since rival contentions with respect to the ownership and tenancy are raised, we are of the considered view that the Authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act are the best authorities to decide the issue. In view of the fact that there is no material placed before this court with regard to the issuance of notice before passing the impugned G.O., we have no doubt in our mind that the Authorities have violated principles of natural justice. The issuance of notice to the appellants become all the more necessary, in view of their claim as protected tenants under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.3 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, we set aside the GO Ms. No. 1333 Revenue (UC.IV) Department dated 13.10.2007 issued by the first respondent, being violative of principles of natural justice and remand the matter to the first and second respondents for passing appropriate order after hearing the objections of the appellants as well as third respondent, to the extent of Ac.2.38 guntas in Sy. No. 7 and 8 of Kandikal village and Mandal. It is further made clear that the appellants and the third respondent shall file their objections before the official respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on filing such objections, the official respondents are directed to dispose of the matter, within a period of three months thereafter. With the above direction, the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal as well, are disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar July 10, 2009 MAS.