HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26563 of 2024

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari declaring the impugned order in Case No.E/296/2022 dated 13.09.2024 on the file of the respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary, against in violation of principles of natural justice fair play and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India consequently calling for the records relating connecting with in Case No.E/296/2022 dated 13.09.2024 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same and may pass.…”

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is stated that originally, Korra Amru, grandfather of petitioner No.1, was the pattadar of lands admeasuring Ac.9.04 gts in Sy.No.323/A, Ac.4.20 gts in Sy.No.324, and Ac.7.00 gts in Sy.No.263 situated at Inole Village, Achampet Mandal, and his name continued in the revenue records until 1979. After his demise, the name of his son, Korra Redya, was recorded as pattadar and possessor. It is further stated that Korra Redya subsequently passed away on 25.03.2001, leaving behind two sons i.e, petitioner No.1 and Harya, husband of petitioner No.2. It is also stated that when the petitioners tried to mutate their names in the revenue records, they discovered that lands admeasuring Ac.1.02 gts in Sy.No.323/A/2 and Ac.0.30 gts in Sy.No.324/A2 was recorded in the name of petitioner No.1, and the lands admeasuring Ac.1.02 gts in Sy.No.323/A and Ac.0.30 gts in Sy.No.324/A was recorded in the name of the petitioner No.2 and the remaining extents of lands was mutated in the name of respondent Nos.5 to 11. It is further stated that the petitioners submitted an application to respondent No.4 seeking information regarding the basis for such mutation. The respondent No.4, vide Endorsement in Lr.No.C/10/2018, informed that no relevant records were available in his office and hence, no details could be furnished. It is also stated that aggrieved by the mutation of names of respondent Nos.5 to 11 in the revenue records, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 on the file of respondent No.3 and the same was allowed vide order dated 17.01.2023 passed in Case No.E/296/2022. In compliance of the said order, the respondent No.4 deleted the names of respondent Nos.5 to 11 and issued pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the respondent Nos.5 to 11 filed an Interlocutory Application in the said case to set aside the ex parte order dated 17.01.2023 and the respondent No.3 issued Form-II notice dated 03.09.2024 directing the petitioners to appear on 21.09.2024 at 11:00 AM. However, before the said date of hearing i.e, 21.09.2024, the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 in Case No.E/296/2022 withdrawing the earlier order dated 17.01.2023.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.3, having issued Form-II notice dated 03.09.2024 fixing the hearing on 21.09.2024, ought not have passed any order prior to that date. The impugned order dated 13.09.2024, which pre-dates the hearing, is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as it deprived the petitioners of an opportunity to be heard.

5. A careful examination of the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Case No.E/296/2022 by the respondent No.3, would reveal that the respondent No.3 while observing that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte, withdrawn the earlier order No.E/296/2022 dated 17.01.2023 and cancelled the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of petitioners herein in respect of subject lands. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No.3 having issued notice in Form-II dated 03.09.2024 directing the petitioners to appear on 21.09.2024