THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.21793 of 2003 Dated:02nd August, 2010 Between: 1. Rutthala Sanyasi Rao (died) and others. ….Petitioners and 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.21793 of 2003 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Rutthala Sanyasi Rao seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings Rc.No.822/2003/F, dated 16.09.2003, cancelling the pattadar pass book No.376029 granted in his favour in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents situated in Survey No.349, Narsipatnam Village, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The writ petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents comprising Survey No.349 of Narsipatnam village. His father and his paternal uncles jointly purchased Ac.3.00 of land from the father of Chitikala Umamaheswara Rao-3rd respondent under an agreement of sale dated 22.03.1976 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Thereafter, the land was partitioned and Ac.1.00 cents of land was allotted to the share of the petitioner in the year 1990. The name of the petitioner has been entered into the revenue records as owner of the property. The petitioner obtained pattadar pass book and title deed from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District-2nd respondent. After due enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsimpatnam-2nd respondent granted pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1992. Whileso, Chitikala Umamaheswara Rao-3rd respondent submitted a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam-1st respondent for cancellation of the pattadar pass book and title deed granted in the name of the petitioner. The 1st respondent without putting the petitioner on notice, proceeded to cancel the pattadar pass book and title deed of the petitioner vide proceedings Rc.No.822/2003/F, dated 16.09.2003. The said proceeding is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. Pending the writ petition, Rutthala Sanyasi Rao died and his legal representatives came on record as writ petitioners 2 to 6 as per orders passed in WPMP No.15716 of 2004, dated 29.09.2004. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the very application of the 3rd respondent submitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam-1st respondent is not maintainable since the same is not submitted within the period of limitation as provided under Section 5(v) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Sannepalli Nageswara Rao v. District Collector, Khammam[1]. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam-1st respondent called for the report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsipatnam-2nd respondent. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsipatnam-2nd respondent conducted enquiry and submitted his report and after considering the report of the MRO, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam-1st respondent passed the order impugned in the writ petition and therefore, the order impugned in the Writ Petition is not liable to be interfered. 7. I have gone through the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam-1st respondent. The order does not indicate of the notice being served on either of the parties. Non- issuance of notice to the petitioner by the 1st respondent before passing the impugned order amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. On this short ground, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside remanding the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam-1st respondent, for fresh consideration of the matter. The petitioners are at liberty to take all the pleas available to them before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam-1st respondent. The 1st respondent has to dispose of the application filed by the applicants within four weeks. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd August, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.21793 of 2003 Dated:02nd August, 2010 [1] 2002 (4) ALT 465