The court ruled that actions taken without notice and after a significant delay are arbitrary and violate principles of natural justice, rendering such orders invalid.

ORDER :

K.Sarath, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings Nos.B/14/97, dated 21.01.2008 and BYB/B/14/06, dated 03.10.2007 issued by the respondent No.2 and sought to set aside the same on the ground that the said proceedings were issued without affording any opportunity to the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned representing Sri V.Brahmaiah Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri Kiran Kumar Gattu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. In spite of service of notice none appeared for the unofficial respondent No.4.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.2, in the year, 1979, allotted the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas in Sy.No.190 of Tatiparti Village of Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of the father of the petitioner i.e. Kattela Ramaiah, vide Proc.No.3827 dated 20.03.1979. One Kattela Yellaiah S/o. Chinnaiah and Kattela Jangaiah S/o. Veeraiah were also allotted the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas each through Proc.No.3825 and 3826 dated 20.03.1979 in the same survey number and the name of father of the petitioner was also recorded in the revenue records and they are cultivating the same since then. While it being so, the respondent No.2 issued Proc.No.B/14/97, dated 21.01.2008 directing the respondent No.3/Tahsildar to amend the name of Kattela Ramaiah and incorporate the name of the unofficial respondent No.4 i.e. Kattela Ramaiah S/o K.Yellaiah. The respondent No.2 also issued Proc.No.BYB/B/14/06 dated 03.10.2007 directing the respondent No.3 to issue patta by incorporating the name of the unofficial respondent No.4.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the unofficial-respondent No.4 without having any right made applications to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 claiming that the name of his father was wrongly mentioned in earlier patta i.e. ‘Ramaiah’ instead of ‘Yellaiah’. Basing on the said representation the respondent No.2 passed impugned orders mutating the name of the respondent No.4 in place of name of father of the petitioner in Proc.No.B/1497, dated 21.01.2008.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.2, without there being any land, granted patta in favour of the unofficial respondent No.4 in impugned proceedings No.BYB/B/4/06, dated 03.10.2007. In view of allotment of land to the unofficial respondent No.4 the official respondents wants to cancel the allotment made to the father of the petitioner, which was made in the year, 1979 and the said action is arbitrary and illegal.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that prior to issuing the impugned proceedings, the official respondents not issued any notice to the petitioner or his brothers, which is against the principles of natural justice and the Bhoodan Yagna Board has no power or jurisdiction to change allotment made after thirty years and requested to set aside the same by allowing the writ petition.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for Bhoodan Yagna Board, basing on the counter would submit that as per the records, the donors namely Sri Rama Chandra Reddy, Sri Satyanarayana Reddy and Sri Sudershan Reddy have jointly donated land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.15.27 guntas situated at Thatiparty Village on 26.08.1955 by executing a deed and since the date of donation the subject lands were in possession of the Bhoodan Yagna Board and therefore the lands were vested in the name of the Government. The Board maintains a register showing the lands donated and accepted before commencement of the Act as per Rule