Proceedings against a deceased individual without legal representation of heirs violate principles of natural justice, rendering such orders invalid.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the 3^rd respondent in suo motu proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (herein after referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder.

2. Pursuant to the report of the 4^th respondent dated 12.12.2016 vide the said order, the 3^rd respondent held that one Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma, respondent in the said proceedings failed to produce documents and to establish clear flow of title/right over the land in an extent of Ac.0.68 cents in Sy.No.1663-2 of Allur Village, Kothapatnam Mandal.

3. Heard Sri V. Srinivasula Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the 6^th respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the subject matter property is the ancestral property of Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma, her name was mutated in the revenue records and Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds were also issued to her and that after her demise, the same is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. He submits that the said Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma gifted the subject land to the petitioners through a registered gift deed dated 19.02.2005, to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents in Sy.No.1663-2 and further an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.No.1663-5 of Allur Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, respectively.

5. He submits that the petitioners’ names were mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said lands, as is evident from the material filed along with the writ petition. While that being the situation, learned counsel submits that the 6^th respondent appears to have approached the revenue authorities/3^rd respondent and suo motu revision proceedings under Section 9 of the Act were initiated against the said Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma. He contends that during the pendency of the revision proceedings, Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma died on 14.09.2017 and the same was brought to the notice of the 3^rd respondent by way of a memo dated 16.12.2017. He argues that despite the said aspect and submission that the legal representatives were required to be brought on record, the 3^rd respondent passed the impugned order and the same is not sustainable in law, apart from violative of principles of natural justice.

6. Learned counsel also sought to advance arguments with reference to civil litigation in respect of the subject matter property. However, the same is not germane for deciding the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order.

7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. He contends that as is evident from the impugned order, the legal representatives were heard and therefore, the contentions to the contrary are not tenable. He also draws the attention of this Court to the relevant pages in the original record produced by him and submits that the legal representatives filed counter before the 3^rd respondent and therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned order is not liable to be set aside as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

8. Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the 6^th respondent, made submissions supporting the arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. He submits that the 3^rd respondent after thoroughly examining the material on record and considering the counter filed by the legal representatives of the said Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma, passed a reasoned orde