Natural justice must be adhered to in administrative actions; however, writ courts typically defer to alternative remedies unless there's substantial injustice or procedural irregularity.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, ACJ.

Ms. K. Manasa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 4; Sri B. Bhagath Sain, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 and Sri G. Venkateshvarlu, leaned counsel for respondent No.8.

2. Heard on admission.

3. This intra-court appeal takes exception to the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18192 of 2021.

4. Criticizing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s name was deleted from the revenue records without putting her to notice. Thus, principles of natural justice were grossly violated. In that event, despite availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition can be entertained. It is submitted that the civil suit, although is a remedy, nothing prevents this Court to entertain this writ petition when principles of natural justice were violated.

5. The other side supported the impugned order.

6. Learned Single Judge has given the following findings in the impugned order:-

“4. Per contra, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has submitted that Sri P. Ram Reddy (husband of the petitioner) during his lifetime has sold the lands in Sy.Nos.83 and 84 situated at Kothapally Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, to the respondent Nos.5 to 8 under sadabainama and since the date of purchase, they are in possession of the same. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.5 to 8 got validated sadabainama vide proceedings Nos.ROR/B/264/2005 and ROR/B/268/2005 dated 17.06.2006 issued by the respondent No.4 and they were also issued pattadar passbooks in their favour. It is contended that suppressing the above facts, the petitioner obtained Pouthi Izafa/succession and got mutated her name in the revenue records and when the same was brought to the notice of the respondent No.4, the respondent No.4 deleted the name of the petitioner from the revenue records in 4 respect of lands admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts in Sy.No.83 and Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.84/A/1, total admeasuring Ac.4-20 gts and incorporated the names of respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the revenue records. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 03.02.2021 in Case No.D1/82/2021 (File No.B/ROR/8945/2019) directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal. It is further submitted that even though the petitioner filed review petition and got reopened the case for hearing the matter afresh, the respondent No.2 rightly dismissed the said Case No.D1/82/2021 vide order dated 21.06.2021. It is submitted that there is no illegality or legal infirmities in the impugned order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the respondent-authorities have followed the procedure as contemplated under ROR Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is seen from the record that the respondent No.5 to 8 got validated the sadabainama vide proceedings Nos. ROR/B/264/2005 and ROR/B/268/2005 dated 17.06.2006 issued by the respondent No.4 and consequently, got mutated their names in the revenue records. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed revision case on the file of respondent No.2 and the same was dismissed holding that the matter is purely civil in nature and relegated the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of her grievance. It is pertinent to state that the issues with regard to the genuineness of the sadabainam