Point of Law : The Doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard, concerned authority should follow fair and transparent procedure and authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of matters by reasoned order or speaking order.

JUDGMENT :

1. The long standing harassment of the mighty Government meted out to the original petitioner - T.C. Rajarathnam, who is a poor ryoth, depriving him from enjoying land of an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, though the litigation attained finality in the Hon’ble Supreme Court lead to filing of this writ petition by the original petitioner - T.C. Rajarathnam, claiming writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the third respondent in including land of an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District from the list of properties prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, by treating the same as Government land, despite granting patta under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, (for short “the Act”) in favour of the original petitioner by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, which is confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.Nos.12594-12595 of 2016, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the law, so also to declare the rejection order of the fourth respondent dated Nil/09/2018 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, consequently, direct the sixth respondent to delete the subject land from the list of properties prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that Petitioner No.1/late T.C. Rajarathnam purchased land of an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District (hereinafter referred as “subject land) from one P. Padmanabhaiah through a registered sale deed in the year 1968 for valid consideration. The Estate of Mangalam Village was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner No.1 submitted a claim under Section 11(a) of the Act before the then Settlement Officer, Nellore claiming ryotwari patta forr the land purchased by him. After conducting enquiry, examining the witnesses and verifying the records, the Settlement Officer, Nellore, granted ryotwari patta over the subject land in SR.No.13/11(a)81 CGR dated 19.09.1981.

3. The Director of Settlement, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has taken up suo-moto revision against grant of ryotwari patta under Section 5(2) of the Act, passed orders setting-aside the orders of the Settlement Officer, Nellore vide order in R.P.No.187/83 dated 20.08.1985.

4. Aggrieved by the order, Petitioner No.1 preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, A.P. Hyderabad, wherein the Commissioner set-aside the orders of Director of Survey and Settlements vide proceedings No.P3/2439/1985 dated 11.08.1985 and remanded the case to the Director of Settlements for fresh enquiry and disposal.

5. The Director of Settlements has again set-aside the orders of Settlement Officer, Nellore vide order dated 30.11.1991. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, before whom revision was filed, has passed order vide Proc.No.P3/2104/92 dated 25.07.1994 duly allowing the revision and confirmed the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981. Since the orders of Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad, were not implemented by the District Collector, Chittoor, Petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.25640 of 1995 before the High Court, the writ petition was disposed of on 17.11.1995 directing the Joint Collector, Chittoor to pass appropriate orders within two months.

6. Instead of implementing the orders passed by the Commissioner, the District Collector preferred W.P.No.5718 of 1997, which was allowed on 18.07.2000, setting-aside the orders of C.S.S. & L.R vide order dated 18.07.2000 and remanded the case to the Commissioner. The Commissioner of Appeals has taken up the remanded case for enquiry and confirmed the orders