Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 632
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Alampally Laxminarayana & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12495 of 2013
Decided On : 11-09-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. K. Rama Mohan.
Issuance of notice to the persons likely to be effected by the action of decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in the record of rights is a statutory embodiment of the most important facet of the rules of natural justice i.e., Audi Alterm Partem.
Headnote:
WRIT - MANDAMUS - REVENUE - LAND ACQUISITION - DINDI PROJECT - CHANGE OF ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORDS - WITHOUT NOTICE TO PETITIONERS - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - PROCEEDINGS SET ASIDE - DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE STEPS AS INDICATED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NALGONDA, WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THE ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners are in possession of the lands and the names of the petitioners were entered into the revenue records. Accordingly, the 4th respondent issued Adangals/pahanis in the name of the petitioners. On 19.08.2009, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, issued proceedings CCLA’s Ref.No.B4/1195/2009, calling for a report from the 2nd Respondent by taking necessary action with regard to acquisition of lands for Dindi Project. In pursuance of the above-mentioned proceedings, the 2nd Respondent issued letter No.El/210/07, dated 07.09.2009 to the 5th Respondent and others directing them to report the matter upon inspection. On 21.02.2011, 2nd Respondent herein issued a letter No. E1/210/07, reiterating the contents of the earlier letter. Without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners, on 04.02.2011, the 4th Respondent altered the revenue records through proceedings No.A/165/2011, in favour of respondent No.5.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned proceedings dt.04.02.2011 in Proceeding No.A/165/2011 of the 4th Respondent herein has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioners in clear violation of principles of natural justice and hence need to be set aside. A bare perusal of the relevant provisions i.e., Sec.4 dealing with acquisition of rights to be intimated, Sec.5 dealing with amendment and updating of record of rights, of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and Rule 5 of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Rules, 1989, clearly indicate that the proviso to Section 5(1) and Section 5(3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of the rules of natural justice i.e., Audi Alterm Partem these provisions contemplate issuance of notice to the persons likely to be effected by the action of decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in the record of rights and the order impugned is in clear violation of Audi Alterm Partem.
Issues: Whether the proceedings No.A/165/2011, dated 04.02.2011 of the 4th Respondent herein has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioners in clear violation of principles of natural justice and hence need to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40 in Umanath Pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another at paras 10 & 11 observed that the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play.
Final Decision: Writ petition is allowed as prayed for and the proceedings No.A/165/2011, dated 04.02.2011 of the 4th Respondent herein is set aside and the Respondents are directed not to dispossess the Petitioners from their respective possession. This Court further taking into consideration the subsequent latest development in pursuance of the filing of the present writ petition duly considering Lr.No.E1/210/2007, dated 04.04.2023 of the District Collector, Nalgonda and also the CCLAs letter No.CMRO/197237/2023, dated 29.05.2023 of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Hyderabad brought on record, through Memo dated 18.06.2023 by the petitioners herein directs the respondents herein to initiate appropriate steps as indicated in the detailed report vide Lr.No.E1/210/2007, dated 04.04.2023 of the District Collector, Nalgonda, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No. 4 in issuing proceedings Proc.No. A/165/2011, dated 04.02.2011 directing the Village Revenue Officer and Mandal Revenue Inspector, Gundlapalli Mandal, to change the entries in revenue records in favour of Respondent No.5 by deleting the names of the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and direct the 3rd Respondent to pass orders in revision No.1/2399/2012 filed by the 3rd Petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioners in brief, is as follows :
(a) The 1st petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.13 ¼ gts in Sy.No.363 and Ac.0.15 gts in Sy.No.364; 2nd petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.27 ½ gts in Sy. No. 364; the 3rd petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.1.22 ¾ gts in Sy. No.376 and Ac.2.19 gts in Sy.No.377; 4th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.4.01 ½ gts in Sy.No.376 and Ac.3.12 gts in Sy. No.377; 5th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy. No.375, Acs.3.00 in Sy.No.376 and Acs.5.30 gts in Sy.No. 377; 6th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac. 1.22 gts ¾ in Sy.No.364; 7th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.13 ½ gts in Sy No.377; 8th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.11 gts in Sy. No.363 and Ac.0.13 ½ cents in Sy.No.303; 9th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.11 gts in Sy.No.363 and Ac.0.09 gts in Sy.No.364; 10th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.11 gts in Sy.No.363 and Ac.0.01 ½ gts in Sy. No.364; 11th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.13 1/2 gts in Sy. No.363 and Ac.0.09 ½ in Sy.No.364; 12th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.02 gts in Sy.No.363 and Ac.0.12 gts in Sy.No.364; 13th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.02 ¼ gts in Sy.No.363 and Ac.0.11 ½ gts in Sy.No.364; 14th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.03 ¼ gts in Sy.No.363 and Ac.0.15 ½ gts in Sy.No.364; 15th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.10 gts in Sy.No.364; 16th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.01 ½ gts in Sy. No.363 and Ac.0.08 gts in Sy.No.364; 17th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac. 0.02 gts in Sy.No.363 and Ac.0.07 gts in Sy. No.364; 18th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.01 ½ gts in Sy.No.363 and Ac.0.08 gts in Sy.No.364; 19th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.07 ½ gts in Sy.No.364 and Ac.0.03 ¼ gts in Sy.No.363; 20thpetitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.02 gts in Sy.No.363 and Ac.0.02 ½ gts in Sy.No.364; 21st petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.02 gts in Sy.No.363; 22nd petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.27 ½ gts in Sy.No.364; 23rd petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.14 ½ gts in Sy.No.364; 24th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac. 0.03 gts in Sy. No. 299, Ac.0.09 gts in Sy. No.307, Ac.1.23 gts in Sy.No.338 and Ac. 1.27 gts in Sy No.301; 25th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.0 ½ gts in Sy. No.340, Ac.0.02 gts in Sy No.375 and Acs.4.16 gts in SyNo.374; 26th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.03 gts in Sy.No.299, Ac.0.12 gts in Sy.No.307, Acs.3.13 gts in Sy.No.338 and Ac.2.04 gts in Sy. No.301; 27th petitioner is having right to an extent of Acs.2.16 gts in Sy No.338; 28th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.0 ½ gts in Sy.No.340, Acs.2.00 in Sy. No.338 and Ac.0.22 gts in Sy.No.301; 29th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.09 gts in Sy.No. 307, Ac.1.28 gts in Sy.No.341 and Ac.1.24 gts in Sy.No.338; 30th petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac. 1.30 gts in Sy.No. 338 and 341; 31st petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.04 gts inSy. No.299; 32nd petitioner is having right to an extent of Ac.0.26 gts in Sy.No.309, Ac.0.05 gts in Sy. No.291, Ac.0.05
