THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.922 of 2014 Dated: 20.01.2014 Between:
T.V. Sai Kumar .. Petitioner and The Primary Tribunal-cum-Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, O/o. Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District and another.
.. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M. Bala Subrahmanyam Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by proceedings in D.Dis.No.404/2013/A dated 10.06.2013 of respondent No.1, whereby he has declined to hold an enquiry in order to determine the nature of the land under Section 3(1) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).
I have heard Mr. M. Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area).
The petitioner has made an application on 03.10.2012 for determination of the nature of the land admeasuring Acres 263-27 cents of Sangivalasa Agraharam Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and that he has filed a separate claim petition for grant of ryotwari patta. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 has declined to hold an enquiry purportedly on the ground that Sangivalasa Agraharam village was already notified and taken over by the Government under Section 1(4) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order, he was not put on notice. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no reference to the notice issued to the petitioner has been made therein. Even assuming that the reasoning given by respondent No.1 was sustainable, he ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner and given him an opportunity of meeting the proposed ground of rejection. Being an applicant and also a claimant under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to such an opportunity.
As respondent No.1 has denied proper opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case, the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue a notice to the petitioner, indicating the ground on which he proposes to reject the petitioner’s application. After giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, respondent No.1 shall pass a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.1006 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th January, 2014 IBL