IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20802 of 2005 Between: Y.Venkataswamy and three others. … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Anantapur and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri O.Manoher Reddy Counsel for respondents: Mrs.Krishna K.Gahloth for Sri V.Venkata Ramana for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 7-7-2004 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mrs. Krishna K.Gahloth, counsel representing Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.3. An extent of Ac.7.00 cents in Survey No.184-3 of Kanekal village and Mandal, Anantapur District, is the subject matter of the dispute. Petitioner No.1 claimed that the said land originally belonged to his mother-in-law Smt.Sunkamma; that the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook on 23-4-1981 in favour of his mother-in-law; and that she executed a registered gift deed on 3-7-1991 in favour of his wife- Yerraguntla Hanumakka. He further averred that after execution of the gift deed, his wife took crop loan from State Bank of India, Bellary Branch on 2-11-1995; that when respondent No.3 without any right or title started interfering with her possession, his wife was constrained to file O.S.No.130 of 1996 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg, for permanent injunction; that his wife died later on 4-3-2001; and that in view of her absence the said suit was dismissed for default. It is also stated that the petitioners and the daughters of petitioner No.1 filed a petition to condone the delay of 302 days in filing an application to set aside the default order; that the said application having been dismissed, they filed Civil Revision Petition No.2012 of 2004 in this Court; and that the said revision was allowed on 28-10- 2004. He further stated that respondent No.3 filed a revision before respondent No.1 questioning the order of Mandal Revenue Officer in issuing pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the wife of petitioner No.1; that respondent No.1 entertained the said revision and called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer; and that on the basis of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, respondent No.1 issued the impugned order canceling the pattadar passbook and title deed. It is further averred that before passing the said order, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. The file does not contain counter-affidavits of any of the respondents. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 has taken note of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bommanahal, stating that petitioner No.1 filed O.S.No.130 of 1996 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg, and suffered dismissal order on 11-8- 2000; that an application is pending before the said Court to set aside the said dismissal order; and that one Sri V. Nagireddy, lessee from respondent No.3, is found to be in actual possession of the land in question. It is further stated therein that on the memo filed by the Advocate for respondent No.3, the case was posted for hearing on 26-6-2004 on which date the counsel for respondent No.3 was present and petitioner No.1 is absent. Respondent No.1 took into consideration the copy of order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg in I.A.No.30 of 2003 in O.S. No.130 of 1996 and the fact that the said application was dismissed on 12-12-2004. The petitioners filed a copy of order dated 28-10-2004 passed in C.R.P.No.2012 of 2004 by which order dated 12-2- 2004 passed in I.A.No.30 of 2003 in O.S.No.130 of 1996 was set aside and the suit was restored to file. The plea of the petitioners that no notice was given to them by respondent No.1 is not controverted by the respondents. The fact that the order in I.A.No.30 of 2003 in O.S.No.130 of 1996, which constituted the sole basis for respondent No.1 to allow the revision petition filed by respondent No.3, was set aside by this Court in CRP No.2012 of 2004 is not in dispute. Therefore, in my considered view, the whole premise on which respondent No.1 passed the order allowing the revision in favour of respondent No.3 ceased to exist. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of respondent No.1 is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the revision petition filed by respondent No.3 afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and respondent No.3. ----------------------------------- ----- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:04-07-2008 MNR