The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements & Land Records cannot pass an order without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners.

ORDER:

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the orders in CSS & LR’S No.P3/1543/87, dated 22.06.1998 passed by the respondent No.2 and consequently set aside the same…”

2. The case of the petitioners is that after abolition of the Estates, the 1st petitioner’s father late S.Raja Reddy made an application under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, for grant of Ryothwari Patta for the land in Sy. No.210 and 211 of Peddakapupalli Village of Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District, and the Settlement Officer, Nellore had granted Settlement Patta in favour of the 1st petitioner’s father 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.

3. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner’s father 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 1st petitioner’s father 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.”

4. 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.892, 891 and 894 respectively. While so, the respondent No.5, instead of updating the revenue entries in On- line, started to interfere with the petitioner’s rights and respondent No.3 and 4 came to subject land of the petitioner on 20.05.2016 and asked the petitioner, not to enter into the subject land as the Revision Petition filed by the father-in-law of the petitioner and others was dismissed. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. When the matter came up for hearing on 08.07.2016, this court granted an interim order in W.P.M.P No.21754 of 2016 as follows:

“…there shall be status-quo obtaining as on today...”

6. The respondent No.5 filed counter, wherein it is contended that the land in Sy.No.211 with a total extent of Ac.1605.70 cents of Peddakapupalle village, is classified as Adavi in the village Adangal and it is an M.C.field without any Sub-divisions.

7. On perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 22.06.1998 of the 2nd Respondent/Commissioner of Survey, Settlements & Land Records, it appears that the impugned order is passed without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners and on the other hand the order shows that the petitioners filed Revision Petition before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements & Land Records and the same was dismissed leading to the filing of Writ Petition No.8368 of 1982. 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.

8. In view of the facts stated above, instead of going into merits of the case, this court feels it appropriate to remand the matter to the 2nd Respondent herein.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the 2nd Respondent, for fresh enquiry after giving