The Agent to the Government-cum-District Collector must follow the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924, in adjudicating disputes, and must give proper opportunity to the parties to present their case and consider the relevant documents and evidence before passing an order.

JUDGMENT :

D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J.

1. This appeal is filed questioning the order dated 16.09.2017 in O.S. No. 24 of 2017/F2 passed by the Agent to the Government-cum-District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru.

2. Initially, the interlocutory applications were taken up for hearing and an interim order was granted. Later, in view of the issues raised, the Registry was directed to summon the entire record from the Agent to the Government concerned. The record was received and with the consent of both the learned counsel, the appeal itself was taken up for hearing on 11.09.2018 and heard completely.

3. This Court has heard Sri. P.V. Krishnamachary, learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants 5 and 6 and Sri. P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 3.

4. The essential ground that is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 5 and 6 is that the entire hearing is completed in a hurried manner and that the matter involving substantial rights in the properties was decided in a very summary manner. It is his contention that notice has not been served, documents were received behind back of the party and that a decision on merits was delivered without giving an opportunity of being heard. The essential grounds that are raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are spelt out in ground Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the grounds of appeal. In addition, the learned counsel also submits that the District Collector who is deciding the dispute himself is shown as a party to the dispute and therefore it is his contention that a party in his own case cannot decide the dispute. The grounds that are detailed in this para form the sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.

5. In reply thereto, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the procedure adopted by the Agent to the Government was correct and is in tune with the Agency Laws. It is his contention that the entire procedure of a protracted civil trial has not been contemplated and that the Agent to the Government did not commit any error in passing the impugned order. According to the counsel, notices were in fact served and the present appellants were fully aware of the hearing and yet they did not participate in the suit proceedings.

6. This Court has taken up the main appeal itself for hearing, in view of the fact that in this matter and in other matters of similar nature orders are being pronounced in a similar manner. The learned counsel for the appellants stressed upon the need to hear this matter immediately in view of the issues involved. He states that valuable property rights of the parties particularly from the tribal/agency areas are being decided in a summary manner without due regard to the fundamental principles of law and jurisprudence. He states that this case is. a classic case of justice hurried.

7. At the outset, as far as issuance of notices is concerned, this Court notices that the Photostat copy of the document, which has been produced from the Agent to the Government at running page-29 shows that Sri. Thandra Kondala Rao received a copy of notice which fixed the date of hearing on 16.09.2017 both on his behalf and on behalf of Sri. Thandra Dilip Kumar, who is the second appellant and sixth defendant in the proceedings of the Agent to the Government. Therefore, the submission about the non-service of notice and consequent injustice is not really borne out by the record.

8. The plaint that is filed in this case is for the following substantial reliefs:

(a) Declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property.

(b) Directing the defendants 5 and 6 to deliver possession of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs.

(c) Directing defendant No. 3 to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds and mutation of records of defendants 5 and 6.

(d) Directing defendant No. 4 to issue land acquisition compensation amount to the plaintiffs.