The court ruled that adherence to due process is essential in land mutation cases to protect the rights of legitimate heirs, emphasizing the requirement for notice and opportunity to contest as mandated by law.

JUDGMENT :

(K. SARATH, J.)

This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the respondent No.4 in Case No.D1/45/2014 dated 23.10.2019 in reversing the orders of the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy in File No.D/113/2007 dated 03.02.2013 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri K. Gani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the mother of petitioners late Chinna Nagamma was the pattadar of lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0-32 gts in Sy.No.127, Ac.0.10 gts in Sy.No.158, Ac.4.13 gts in Sy.No.159, Ac.0.13 gts in Sy.No.175, Ac.0.07 gts in Sy.No.176, Ac.1.26 gts in Sy.No.177, Ac.4.13 gts in Sy.No.195 and Ac.1.06 gts in Sy.No.199 situated at Kanmanoor Village of Peddamandhadi Mandal, Wanaparthy. The unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 by creating the bogus documents and misrepresenting the facts before the respondent No.2-Tahsildar got mutated their names in the revenue records without having any right and the respondent No.2 did not issue any notice to the mother of petitioners prior to said mutation. The mother of petitioner filed appeal bearing No.D/113/2007 before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was allowed on 03.02.2013 setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 has restored the name of the mother of petitioners in the revenue records for the subject lands by order dated 18.10.2013 in File No.B/522/2013. Against the said orders, the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed two revisions before the respondent No.4 after formation of new Districts and the village of the petitioners comes under Mahabubnagar District. During pendency of those revisions, the mother of petitioners died on 16.05.2019 and the petitioners being legal heirs were not brought on record by the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the Revision Case No.D1/45/2014. The respondent No.4 has clubbed both the revisions and allowed the revisions by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 in File No.D/113/2007 dated 03.02.2013 and the consequential order passed by the respondent No.2 in File No.B/522/2013 dated 18.10.2013.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the respondent No.4 has mentioned the names of petitioners as legal heirs in Revision Case No.D1/09/2016, he has not given an opportunity to the petitioners to be impleaded as legal heirs in Case No.D/45/2015 dated 23.10.2019, which is a main case and as such, the order passed by the respondent No.4 in Case No.D1/45/2014 dated 23.10.2019 is void as it was passed against a dead person. He submits that after the orders passed by the respondent No.3 in File No.D/113/2007 dated 03.02.2013, the subject lands were gifted in favour of the petitioner No.1 and his daughter as those lands are ancestral lands and the mother of petitioner got share out of the other shareholders in the subject lands. He further submits that the other share holders have sold the lands to the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 and some others because of illiteracy of the mother of petitioners and they got mutated their names in the revenue records by misrepresenting that the mother of petitioners has sold the lands. He further submits the respondent No.3 after thorough enquiry found that the mother of petitioners did not alienate her share of land to anybody and passed orders for restoration of the name of petitioners in the revenue records in File No.D/113/2007 dated 03.02.2013. He further submits that the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 have c