IMPORTANT POINT
Reopening of land ceiling cases after a long period without valid reasons violates natural justice and lacks jurisdiction.

ORDER :

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

“…to issue an order or a direction more particularly a writ of certiorari by calling for the records in respect of the show cause notice in Rc.No.E/87/2011 dated 15.05.2012 and quash the same...”

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The case of the petitioners is that they are the members of the undivided Hindu joint family. They owned and possessed agricultural lands in Nellutla, Lingala Ghanpur, Kallem, Yeshwanthapur, Kilashipuram and Machupahad of Warangal District and they have filed declarations under Section 8(1) of the A.P./Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural) Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter called brevity, ‘the Act’) before the primary Tribunal. The Additional Divisional Officer (LR) Warangal-II passed orders under Section 9 of the Act on 23.04.1997 and declared that the petitioners are having lands in excess of ceiling limits to the extent of equivalent to 34.9353 Standard Holding (SH) as on 01.01.1975 and directed to surrender the said land as surplus land. Questioning the said order, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal vide L.R.A.No.1884 of 1977. The appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal in part holding that the lands covered by residential houses, cattle sheds, vaagu, port kharab are liable to be excluded from the holding of the petitioners/declarants, however, remanded the matter in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.153, 191, 193, 202, 204, 205, 207 to 211 and 212/2, which are under submergence of the tank water and rejected the claim of the petitioners relating to examination of lands covered by tank submergence from the holding by its order dated 06.06.1979. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed appeal i.e., LRA.No.90 of 1980 before Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal. The appellate Tribunal after considering the contentions of the respective parties and considering the documentary evidence on record allowed the appeal holding that the lands covered under the Tank submergence are exempted from the holding of the declarants, by its order dated 20.03.1981. Pursuant to the said order, Primary Tribunal re-determined the holding of the declarants and excluded the lands covered under the tank submergence, by its order dated 08.05.1981. Subsequently, the primary Tribunal corrected the clerical error with regard to the land in Sy.No.247 of Kallam village and the said land was excluded from the holding, by its order dated 14.11.1983 and the above said orders have become final.

2.2. While things stood thus, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 11.01.2005 basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.4 to stop the construction activity and also issued directions to the Sub Registrar, Jangaon, to stop the registrations in Sy.Nos.153, 191, 193, 202, 204, 207 to 211 and 212/2 situated at Nellutla (v) of Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, without issuing any notice to the petitioners. Questioning the same, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.2386 of 2005 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and the same was allowed and set aside notice dated 11.01.2005 issued by respondent No.2 by its order dated 16.12.2010, and the said order has become final.

2.3. The petitioner further stated that respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice once again on 25.03.2011, basing on the complaint of respondent No.4 alleging that why the construction activities should not be stopped. Pursuant to the same, petitioners have submitted explanation on 30.03.2011. However, respondent No.2 has not passed any order. It is also stated that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have submitted representations on 01.04.2011 and 15.03.2012 respectively alleging that the petitioners have filed wrong declaration and got exception on false grounds and escaped from surrender of surplus lands. Pursuant to the said representations, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to submit a report. Accordingly, respondent No.3 submitted a report