THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19417 OF 2004 DATED 19th DECEMBER, 2014 Between:
K. Ramesh Raju and others … Petitioners and Deputy Collector & Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutubullapur Mandal, Office at Jeedimetla, R.R. District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19417 OF 2004 O R D E R This writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 04.10.2004 passed by the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said order was passed upon the application filed by the fourth respondent herein, wherein she sought incorporation of her name as the pattedar in respect of a particular piece of land. Perusal of the order under challenge reflects that the Mandal Revenue Officer did not even set out the statutory provision under which he was exercising power. Admittedly, the existing revenue record indicated the names of various persons in respect of the said land. Those persons are the petitioners before this Court. Without notice to them, the order was passed by the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, directing incorporation of the name of the fourth respondent herein.
It is the case of Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, that the vendors of the writ petitioners were heard before the impugned order was passed. However, the impugned order itself evidences that the names of the petitioners were recorded therein and the proceedings issued in their favour, including the pattadar pass books and title deeds, were cancelled. Such an order could not have been passed without giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The order is therefore in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. That apart, the exercise of power by the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutubullapur Mandal, also needs to be explained in terms of its source. No explanation is forthcoming from the State and no counter-affidavit has been filed.
The impugned order therefore suffers on counts more than one and is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. This order shall however not preclude the fourth respondent from taking recourse to such remedies as are available to her in law. Interim order dated 19.10.2004 shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
SANJAY KUMAR, J 19th DECEMBER, 2014
Svv