Point of Law : A tribunal exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial act cannot decide against the rights of a party without giving him a hearing or an opportunity to represent his case in manner known to law.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Case in LTR Appeal No.A4/LTR/31/1985 on the file of respondent No.1 and quash the order in LTR Appeal No.A4/LTR/31/1985, dated 29.12.2007 confirming the orders of respondent No.2 in Case No.TW/A2/848/1984, dated 24.04.1985.

2. Heard Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri G. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. In spite of the service of notice to respondent No.4 she has not chosen to enter into appearance.

3. Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are the owners of the land to an extent of Acs.7.14 guntas in Survey No.52 situated at Lingi village and the same was acquired from their father. He further submits that due to ill health of their father in the year 1982-83 he has taken assistance of respondent No.3 who is his relative, for doing agricultural activities.

4. He further submits that respondent No.2 has initiated suomoto proceedings while exercising the powers conferred under Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations 1959 read with amended regulation of 1970 (hereinafter called as ‘Regulations’ in brevity) on the alleged ground that the transfer has been taken place between petitioner’s father and respondent No.3 and the same is in contravention of the Regulations and the respondent No.2 has passed the ejectment order on 24.04.1985 without giving any notice and opportunity to the petitioner’s father. He further submits that as soon as they came to know about the passing of ejectment order, petitioner’s father filed appeal before respondent No.1 and during the pendency of the appeal, petitioner’s father died. After receiving notices to appear before respondent No.1, the petitioners have appeared before respondent No.1 on 29.12.2007 and requested time for filing documents. But respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of respondent No.2 on 29.12.2007.

5. He also contended that respondent No.2 has not issued any notice and passed ejectment order on 24.04.1985 behind back of the petitioner’s father alleging that respondent No.3 appeared in the proceedings and given a statement that the subject land has been taken on lease towards money loan from petitioner’s father and the same is hit by Section 2(g) of Regulations. He further submits that respondent No.3 has never appeared before respondent No.2 and has not given any statement. The petitioners in the statutory appeal raised specific ground that the petitioner’s father has not received any notice and the respondent No.2 has passed the ejectment order which is clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Respondent No.1 while dismissing the appeal has not given any reason in respect of non service of notice to petitioner’s father and simply confirmed the orders passed by respondent No.2. He also contended that provisions of Regulations are not applicable to the subject land and the transaction took place prior to the Regulations came into effect. The respondent No.2 without verifying any documents simply passed the ejectment order. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in City Corner Vs. Personal Assistant to Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Nellore} 1976(1)SCC124.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare submits that respondent No.2 issued notice which was refused by petitioner’s father and the same was affixed to his house.

7. When this Court directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to produce the proof of service of notice, learned Assistant Government Pleader placed the copy of the notice before this Court. After going through the notice it clearly reveals that a copy of the notice is affixed to the house which reads as fol