THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.35586 of 2025

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in issuing proceedings vide No.E1/857/2025, dated 08.10.2025 inspite of proceedings of issued by respondent No.2 (CCLA) vide proceedings No.ROR/3166165/2025, dated 22.09.2025 for conducting detailed enquiry through District Collector – respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed. A consequential prayer is sought to set aside the said proceedings issued by respondent No.4 in No.E1/857/2025, dated 08.10.2025 inspite of direction of respondent No.2 to the District Collector – respondent No.3 for conduct of denovo enquiry.

2. Heard Mr. K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.6 and Mr. H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned notice issued by respondent No.4 in File No.E1/857/2025, dated 08.10.2025, is wholly unsustainable, as respondent No.2 – CCLA, in proceedings No.ROR/3166165/2025, dated 22.09.2025, has categorically remanded the matter to respondent No.3 – District Collector for conducting a denovo enquiry and for passing a reasoned order. Once such remand has been made, the respondent No.4 could not have taken up the matter or proceeded with issuance of any further notice.

4. It is further submitted that in the absence of any denovo enquiry conducted by respondent No.3 as directed by respondent No.2, the issuance of subsequent proceedings by respondent No.4 is in complete violation of the procedure contemplated under law and contrary to the directions of the superior authority.

5. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent, while producing the photocopy of the proceedings dated 28.10.2025 issued by respondent No.4 in proceedings No.E1/857/2025, submitted that the entire proceedings before respondent No.4 have already been concluded and the petitioner is also a party to the said proceedings. It is further submitted that had the petitioner been genuinely aggrieved, he ought to have challenged the said final proceedings instead of relying on an earlier notice to file the present writ petition. It is further argued that suppression of the fact that final orders were already passed warrants dismissal of the writ petition.

6. This Court, having considered the submissions and upon perusal of the material placed on record, is of the opinion that the proceedings of respondent No.2 at reference No.4 herein, clearly remanding the matter to respondent No.3 for conducing denovo enquiry, bind all subordinate authorities. Once respondent No.2 has remanded the matter, respondent No.4 could not have assumed jurisdiction to conduct proceedings or pass final orders. It is not the case of the respondents that respondent No.4 was unaware of the said remand order. Thus, it is fairly inferable that respondent No.4 acted contrary to the proceedings of respondent No.2 and without jurisdiction under administrative law and the provisions governing revenue matters.

7. Accordingly, this Court, without making any observations on the merits and demerits of the case, deems it appropriate to set aside the proceedings issued by respondent No.4 and remand the matter to respondent No.3 – District Collector, to conduct a denovo enquiry strictly in terms of the directions issued by respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.ROR/316165/2025, dated 22.09.2025. The respondent No.3 shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties by issuing necessary notices and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.

8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending, in this petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J

Date: 24.11.2025

Nsk