An order passed by a quasi-judicial authority without putting the persons likely to be adversely affected by the said order on notice is without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

COMMON ORDER:

Since the order impugned in both these writ petitions is one and the same, the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2) Both these writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records and orders in case No.E3/1304/2008, dated 20.07.2017, passed by respondent No.2-Joint Collector, and quash the same.

3) Brief facts of the case are that originally survey No.273/6 of Rachakonda Village comprised of Acs.211.20 was shown as patta land in Khasra Pahani. Out of the said land, an extent of Acs.82.19 guntas was declared as ceiling surplus land and the remaining land admeasuring Acs.128.35 guntas was recorded as patta land in the name of Zahoorunnisa Begum. Out of the surrendered surplus land of Acs.82.19 guntas, Acs.28.56 guntas were assigned to 14 beneficiaries and the remaining land admeasuring Acs.53.15 guntas is covered by rocky area and hillocks. It is further stated that Zahoorunnisa Begum along with five others had executed a registered General Power of Attorney document No.81 of 1966, dated 19.05.1966, appointing one Mir Kursheed Ali as General Power of Attorney with powers vested on him for selling the property and transferring the patta land in favour of third parties. Thereafter, respondent Nos.11 to 13 herein have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.54-00, Acs.38-00, and Acs.36-00 respectively (total Acs.128-00 guntas) under sada sale deeds dated 21.03.1970, 16.03.1970 and 16.03.1970 respectively, executed by the GPA holder Mir Kursheed Ali. Thereafter, on applications being made under section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (in short (cid:145)ROR Act(cid:146)) by respondent Nos.11 to 13 herein for regularization of the sada sale deeds, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narayanpur Mandal, after recording the statement of the GPA holder Mir Kursheed Ali and conducting the proceedings, as per law, had passed orders directing regularization of the sada sale deeds upon payment of requisite fee and stamp duty. Accordingly, on 19.10.2016, respondent Nos.11 to 13 have paid stamp duty and registration fee. Upon validation of the sada sale deeds, Form 13B and Form 13C Validation Certificates were issued by the Tahsildar in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.54-00, Acs.38-00 and Acs.36-00 in favour of respondent Nos.11 to 13 herein and they were also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Subsequently, respondent Nos.14 to 18 along with one P.Natraj have purchased the above extents of the land from respondent Nos.11 to 13 under registered sale deeds and mutation proceedings dated 30.06.2007 were also issued in favour of respondent Nos.14 to 18. Thereafter, conversion orders converting the lands from agriculture to non- agriculture vide order dated 14.09.2007 were passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.42-00 guntas and Acs.67.35 guntas respectively (total Acs.109.35 guntas) under different registered sale deeds dated 07.11.2007, 09.01.2008 and 27.08.2008 from respondent Nos.14 to 18. While things stood thus, one Baddula Chandraiah, the father respondent Nos.20 to 22 herein, had filed an application before the official respondents stating that he is having 13B Certificate vide file No.3031/1995 dated 23.12.1995 in survey No.273/6 and therefore the order issued in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners is illegal, bad and contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act. Based on the above complaint, the respondent No.2 had taken up suo motu revision by invoking the powers conferred under Section 9 of the ROR Act, conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned order dated 20.07.2017 stating that the names of respondent Nos.11 to 13 were illegally recorded in the pahanies and cancelled the validation certificates and mutation made in favour of respondent Nos.14 to 16 and furt