Point of Law - The principles of natural justice should be free from bias and parties should be given fair opportunity to be heard and all the reasons and decision taken by the court should be informed by the court to the respective parties. Supreme Court said that arriving at a reasonable and justifiable judgment is the purpose of judicial and administrative bodies. The main purpose of natural justice is to prevent the act of miscarriage of justice. Natural Justice is an important concept in administrative law. The term natural justice signifies basic principles of justice, which are made available to every litigant during trial. Principles of natural justice are founded on reason and enlightened public policy.

ORDER:

1. One Smt. T. Lakshmi @ Theresamma, resident of Maddilapalm, Visakahapatnam District, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the proceedings of the second respondent - District Collector in Rc.No.1891/2011/E1 dated 12.02.2013 in ignoring the request of this petitioner to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to sell away the land admeasuring Ac.4-59 cents in Sy.No.371/1, Kapulappadu Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, assigned to the petitioner’s husband under Ex-serviceman quota vide Patta No.225-5/1402 dated 17.11.1992 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently, set-aside the same, directing the respondents to grant ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner to sell-away the land referred above.

2. The petitioner’s husband - Sri T. Nandayya served in the Armed Forces between the years 1944 to 1961, participated in World War-II and discharged from service on 06.10.1961. On his application, the then Tahsildar Bheemunipatnam assigned land admeasuring Ac.4-59 cents in Sy.No.371/1 of Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on 17.11.1992 vide Patta No.225-5. The land was carved out of main Sy.No.314 and it was formed out of sloppy hill poramboke. The petitioner’s husband made application to the then Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam on 11.05.1996 to mutate his name in the revenue records, issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The Tahsildar ignored the application of the petitioner’s husband and did not take any action. He further made similar applications on 18.09.2000 and 08.09.2005, but the fourth respondent ignored the request of petitioner’s husband. While so, the petitioner’s husband died on 19.09.2005. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner also made application to the fourth respondent - Tahsildar on 23.12.2009. Inspite of repeated requests from the petitioner and her husband, the fourth respondent - Tahsildar had neither rejected nor accepted the request of the petitioner.

3. As the petitioner became old, she proposed to sell the land and approached the Sub-Registrar, Bheemunipatnam along with prospective buyer. However, the Sub-Registrar, Bheemunipatnam refused to receive the document of conveyance stating that the land is recorded as Government Land and included in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and refused to register the same.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court and filed W.P.No.30568 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.12.2010 directing the Sub-Registrar, Bheemunipatnam to receive the document presented and to register the same in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908. However, the prospective buyer did not come forward to purchase the same stating that, unless ‘No Objection Certificate’ is obtained from the revenue authorities, he cannot purchase the same, as he would be suffering a lot due to misery and hardship at every stage of dealing with the land subsequent to registration of the same. Therefore, the petitioner made an application to the respondents for issuing ‘No Objection Certificate’ to sell the land after expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment to alienate the same in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (Assignment) Department, dated 11.11.1993. Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar submitted his report vide letter dated 19.10.2011 categorically stating that the petitioner’s family is in possession of the said land for the last 20 years and the said land is fenced with cement pillars and barbed wire and also that cashew, mango and neem trees are existing in the said land. As the petitioner’s application for issue of ‘No Objection Certificate’ was not acted upon, she filed W.P.No.33225 of 2011 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2011 directing the second res