IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.40321 of 2012 BETWEEN Boya Bala Obulesu.
AND ... PETITIONER The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur District and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. N. AWARTHA NARAYNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader.
2. In view of the limited prayer with respect to consideration of the appeal of the petitioner, which is pending with the Revenue Divisional Officer, first respondent, it is not necessary to issue any notice to the third respondent, in view of the order proposed to be passed.
3. Petitioner claims that he was originally assigned an extent of Ac.2.74 cents of land in Sy.No.59-3 of Sodanapalli Revenue village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District under assignment made to him vide D.A.R.Dis.No.92/85 by the then Tahsildar. Petitioner alleges that subsequently the very same land was transferred by the successor Tahsildar in favour of the third respondent herein vide proceedings bearing R.Dis.No.998/97 (B) dated 26.10.1997. Alleging that petitioner was not put to any notice and further alleging that his assignment was never cancelled, the petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the RDO in Rc.No.535/2011 requesting that his appeal for restoration of assigned land be considered expeditiously.
It appears that the RDO called for factual report from the Tahsildar under proceeding dated 21.12.2011 and the Tahsildar, accordingly, submitted his report in Rc.No.535/2011/B dated 06.01.2012 recommending that the earlier order of the Tahsildar dated 26.10.1997 transferring assignment to the third respondent be cancelled. However, the RDO has not passed any further orders thereafter. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the first respondent, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier order of the then Tahsildar dated 26.10.1997 transferring the assignment in favour of the third respondent was passed on the alleged basis that the petitioner had agreed that he has violated the terms of assignment and alienated the land. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never agreed, as above and that there was no question of offering no objection to transfer the land in favour of the third respondent.
5. The aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be gone into in the present writ petition in view of the fact that the they are questions based on the record before the Tahsildar, who passed the order dated 26.10.1997 and further, the issue has to be examined by the first respondent, who has already received the factual report of the Tahsildar, referred to above.
In the circumstances, therefore, keeping in view that the proceedings before the RDO are pending since 2011, it is appropriate to direct the first respondent to issue notice and hear the petitioner as well as the third respondent, after examining the record of the case and pass a reasoned order on the appeal filed by the petitioner, preferably, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 2, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in one week.
(B/o) DSK