THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7605 of 2002 Date:22.07.2010 Between: B.Balreddy and others. ..... Petitioners AND The Government of A.P. and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. N. Gangadhar for Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for quashing G.O.Ms.No.751, Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated 12.12.2001. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. The petitioners claimed to be the owners of Acs.8.00 of land in survey Nos.18, 19, 20 and 21 of Bairamalguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal. The petitioners averred that the father of petitioner No.1, by name, B. Agireddy was inducted as a tenant in the year 1945 by one Ramaswamy, who was holding tenancy over the said lands; that subsequently the said Ramaswamy transferred his tenancy to the father of petitioner No.1 and that he was accordingly declared as protected tenant in the year 1950. The petitioners further averred that after the death of the father of petitioner No.1, they were declared as legal representatives and also given pattadar passbooks over an extent of Acs.5.00 in survey Nos.18, 19, 20 and 21 of Bairamalguda Village and 3,500 sq. yards in Karmanghat Village. The petitioners also averred that they were registered as occupants in respect of the abovementioned lands and were issued occupancy rights certificates on 23.07.1979, vide proceedings No.L/33/79 for the lands in Karmanghat Village and L/29/79 dated Nil.07.1979 for the lands in Bairamalguda Village and that after issuance of the said occupancy rights certificates, the petitioners’ names were also recorded as owners under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The petitioners also stated that they have filed declarations before the authority under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘1973 Act’), vide C.C.No.1972/E/75 and that these lands were also shown in the petitioners’ declarations and also final orders passed on 16.09.1975 by the Special Officer and Competent Authority. It is, however, stated that three persons, by name, Khaja Shakir Hussain, Khaja Nasir Hussain and Razia Sultana claiming to be the owners of the above lands filed declarations; that an order appeared to have been passed by the authority under 1973 Act on 22.07.1994 in C.C.No.E/2476, 2477, 2478/75 including several lands in the holding of the declarants which include the lands in question; that as the said persons have not surrendered the lands, suo motu proceedings were initiated under Section 10 of 1973 Act and that without any notice to the petitioners, an order was passed on 02.03.1996 declaring the large chunk of surplus lands in several villages including the petitioners’ land admeasuring Acs.8.00 and 3,500 sq. yards in Bairamalguda and Karmanghat Villages as vested in the Government. Following the said declaration, the impugned notification has been issued under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘1908 Act’) prohibiting registration of the lands. No counter-affidavits had been filed on behalf of the respondents. Though the petitioners have not filed any documents in support of their pleas, in the absence of counter-affidavit by the respondents, various averments contained in the affidavit have remained uncontroverted. The pleadings contained in the affidavit filed in the writ petition reveal that there appeared to be two parallel proceedings under which the lands in question have been dealt. While the proceedings in which the petitioners have participated appeared to have culminated in grant of occupation rights and pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour, proceedings under 1973 Act which have already taken place behind the back of the petitioners have resulted in declaring the lands in question as surplus and being vested in the Government. Had respondent No.1 given notice to the petitioners and reconciled both these proceedings before issuing the impugned notification, this problem would not have arisen. In the face of the documents stated to be held by the petitioners which evidently show their title, the lands in question cannot be unilaterally declared as Government land and registration be prohibited. As the respondents failed to file any counter-affidavit indicating their stand, it is not possible for this Court to conclusively adjudicate on the rights of the petitioners and the respondents. In this view of the matter, the only option left to this Court is to set aside the impugned notification to the extent of the lands of Acs.8.00 and 3,500 sq. yards in Bairamalguda and Karmanghat Villages and direct respondent No.1 to issue notice to the petitioners and take a decision by passing an appropriate order after hearing them in person. If after hearing the petitioners, respondent No.1 comes to the conclusion that the lands stood vested in the Government, they shall be free to issue fresh notification under Section 22-A of 1908 Act. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9496 of 2002 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd July, 2010 GHN