IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice and the prescribed method and procedure when exercising statutory powers.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“.......to issue such appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents more so particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the order of the second respondent in Rc. No. E3/1135/2009 dated 27.05.2009 and the proceeding of the 3rd respondent in Rc. No. B/849/98 dated 27.05.2009 and the consequential entries in Pahani for the year 2008-09 made in favour of the 4 respondent in the occupation column in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 6.39 gts. out of Sy. No. 394/AA of Gumpena Revenue Village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same......”

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The claim of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is the pattadar and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 6.21 gts. and petitioner No. 2, who is none other than the son of petitioner No. 1, is the pattadar and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 4.20 gts. in Sy. No. 394/AA, apart from other lands, situated at Gumpena Village of Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District. Petitioner No. 1 purchased the said lands under registered sale deeds in the year 1962 and 1967 respectively from its owners and the same were validated by respondent No. 3 under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and mutated their names in the revenue records as pattadars and possessors.

2.2. Respondent No. 4 submitted a representation alleging that he got land to an extent of Ac. 7.20 gts. in Sy. No. 394/AA of Gumpena Village and that some of the revenue officials tampered the 16th column of the pahanies and entered some other persons names as an occupant. Basing on the said representation, respondent No. 2 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, (RDO) to take up the said representation as ROR Appeal and enquire. The RDO initiated the proceedings exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(5) of the Act, suspending the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners dated 22.08.1998. Thereafter, RDO passed another order dated 29.10.1998 basing on the alleged enjoyment survey report of respondent No. 3 by withdrawing the earlier order dated 22.08.1998. Thereafter, RDO once again passed another order dated 30.01.1999 withdrawing the earlier order dated 29.10.1998 and restored the order dated 22.08.1998 without issuing any notice to the petitioners.

2.3. Questioning the above said three orders passed by the RDO, petitioners have filed W.P. No. 3405 of 2002 and the same was disposed of on 21.02.2002 directing the RDO to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.A. No. 728 of 2002 and the same was allowed on 17.06.2002 holding that the RDO had exceeded the jurisdiction and acted contrary to the provisions of ROR Act and directed respondent No. 4 herein to approach respondent No. 3 immediately by filing a fresh and comprehensive application and respondent No. 3 shall receive the said application and after giving notice to the petitioners, shall dispose of the same, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to both parties. In spite of the same, respondent No. 4 had not approached respondent No. 3 and not filed application, as directed by this Court in the above said writ appeal.

2.4. However, respondent No. 3 himself had issued notice to both the parties to appear and make their claim and adduce evidence. Accordingly, both the parties appeared and produced documents and respondent No. 3 finally passed an order dated 12.07.2003 directing respondent No. 4 to file a suit for declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act in civil Court having jurisdiction and the above said order has become final.

2.5. When respondent No. 4 and o