2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 30056

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V.SUJATHA
V.Kesavulu Naidu, – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
WP/24613/2016

An order passed without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners is not valid.

Headnote:

ESTATES ABOLITION ACT - REVISION PETITION - REMAND - Petitioners grandfather made an application under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, for grant of Ryothwari Patta for the land in Sy. Nos.210 and 211 of Peddakapupalli Village of Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District, and the Settlement Officer, Nellore had granted Settlement Patta in favour of the petitioners grandfather vide order No.Sr.2/11(a)/87 PGR, dated 02.05.1970. While so, the Respondent No.3 and two others filed an appeal before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 08.04.1976. Thereafter, the petitioners grandfather filed a Revision before the Respondent No.2 herein and the Revision was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.1982, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners grandfather filed a Writ Petition No.8368 of 1982 and the said Writ Petition was allowed vide order dated 28.12.1987, relevant portion is as follows: “The issue involved in this Writ Petition is similar to the one in W.P.No.8038 of 1982, dated 15.07.1987 for the same reasons this Writ Petition is also allowed and the matter is sent back to the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records for due disposal after giving notice to all the parties concerned. The matter being very old the Commissioner is directed to finalise the same within three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.” In view of the order of this Court in W.P.No.8368 of 1982, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have mutated the revenue records and issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in favour of the petitioners vide Patta Nos.895 and 889 respectively. While so, the respondent No.5, instead of updating the revenue entries in On-line, started to interfere with the petitioners rights and respondent No.3 and 4 came to subject land of the petitioners on 20.05.2016 and asked the petitioners, not to enter into the subject land as the Revision Petition filed by the grandfather of the petitioners and others was dismissed. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners grandfather made an application under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, for grant of Ryothwari Patta for the land in Sy. Nos.210 and 211 of Peddakapupalli Village of Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District, and the Settlement Officer, Nellore had granted Settlement Patta in favour of the petitioners grandfather vide order No.Sr.2/11(a)/87 PGR, dated 02.05.1970. While so, the Respondent No.3 and two others filed an appeal before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 08.04.1976. Thereafter, the petitioners grandfather filed a Revision before the Respondent No.2 herein and the Revision was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.1982, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners grandfather filed a Writ Petition No.8368 of 1982 and the said Writ Petition was allowed vide order dated 28.12.1987, relevant portion is as follows: “The issue involved in this Writ Petition is similar to the one in W.P.No.8038 of 1982, dated 15.07.1987 for the same reasons this Writ Petition is also allowed and the matter is sent back to the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records for due disposal after giving notice to all the parties concerned. The matter being very old the Commissioner is directed to finalise the same within three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.” In view of the order of this Court in W.P.No.8368 of 1982, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have mutated the revenue records and issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in favour of the petitioners vide Patta Nos.895 and 889 respectively. While so, the respondent No.5, instead of updating the revenue entries in On-line, started to interfere with the petitioners rights and respondent No.3 and 4 came to subject land of the petitioners on 20.05.2016 and asked the petitioners, not to enter into the subject land as the Revision Petition filed by the grandfather of the petitioners and others was dismissed. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Finding of the Court:

The impugned proceedings shows that during pendency of the Revision Petition one of the petitioners in the Revision reportedly died and the Mandal Revenue Officer vide his Roc.A/472/83, dated 22.09.1997, reported that his legal representatives are not interested in the case and they did not choose to come on record on their own.

Issues: Whether the impugned order passed without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners is valid?

Ratio Decidendi: Instead of going into merits of the case, this court feels it appropriate to remand the matter to the 2nd Respondent herein.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the 2nd Respondent, for fresh enquiry after giving notice and fair opportunity to the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.