IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 25087 of 2014 BETWEEN Ajmera Harya Naik AND ... PETITIONER State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary and another ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner questions G.O.Ms.No.18, Revenue (DA) Department, dated 11.08.2014, issued under the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 (Act 7 of 1974). Under the aforesaid notification, which was published in the Gazette, ‘Huzurabad’ Revenue Division was newly formed with headquarters at Husurabad, Karimnagar District, and eight Revenue Mandals were included in the newly created Husurabad Revenue Division. Petitioner, who is a resident of Devanaik Thanda, Nandaram Village, Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, questions the said final notification under the G.O. aforesaid, primarily, on the ground that the authorities had issued a preliminary notification under G.O.Rt.No.235, Revenu (DA) Department, dated 19.02.2014, proposing to reorganize and create a new revenue division at ‘Husnabad’ in Karimnagar District. Under the aforesaid G.O.Rt., objections and suggestions from the people affected by the aforesaid action, was called for within thirty days of publication. However, the final notification, which is impugned in this writ petition, is issued creating new revenue division at ‘Huzurabad’.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that there was no preliminary notification seeking for objections and suggestions with regard to Huzurabad Division and on the contrary, there was a preliminary notification proposing Husnabad in Karimnagar District as the new revenue division and in stead of issuing final notification with regard to Husnabad Division, the impugned notification was issued creating Huzurabad as new revenue division. Petitioner, therefore, questions the notification on the ground that Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1974 as well as the Rules framed thereunder, are violated.
4. On 28.08.2014 when the writ petition was initially heard, this court was of the prima facie view that there appears to be a printing mistake in the final notification and, as such, learned Government Pleader was required to get instructions.
5. Today learned Government Pleader fairly states that there was a mistake committed by the respondent authorities in not noticing that the preliminary notification was issued with regard to proposed revenue division at ‘Husnabad’, but the final notification was erroneously issued creating a new Revenue Division at ‘Huzurabad’ instead of Husnabad and, therefore, learned Government Pleader seeks that he may be granted liberty to rectify the said error.
6. In view of the mistake having been fairly accepted on behalf of the respondents, the impugned final notification creating revenue division at ‘Huzurabad’ under G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 11.08.2014, referred to above, accordingly, shall stand quashed.
Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from exercising their powers under the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974, as aforesaid, if they propose to create a new Revenue Division at any place. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 2, 2014 LMV