IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.28600 of 2014 BETWEEN Neerumalla Shivalingam.
AND ... PETITIONER State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. SAJAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The order impugned, passed by the Joint Collector, dated 31.10.2013 is questioned in this writ petition by the petitioner.
2. The impugned order, however, shows that while exercising powers under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short ‘the Act’), the Joint Collector found that the Tahsildar had earlier passed orders without fulfilling the procedural requirements and without issuing notice and hearing all the share holders. Moreover, the petitioner, arrayed as first respondent in the said revision petition, appears to have not appeared before the Joint Collector in spite of notice, though learned counsel for the petitioner now states that the notice was sent on wrong address.
3. Irrespective of the above, the order impugned now directs
de novo enquiry to be conducted by the Tahsildar under the Act by issuing notice to all concerned parties. Since that part of the direction also takes care of one of the grievances of the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as a de novo enquiry by the fourth respondent would serve the interest of justice and would give adequate opportunity to all the interested parties to participate and make their claim in the said enquiry.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order by directing the fourth respondent to conduct enquiry, as directed by the Joint Collector, expeditiously, after giving notice to all the interested parties. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 23, 2014 DSK