IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.15350 of 2013, 21265 and 28268 of 2011 WP.No.15350 of 2013: BETWEEN T.V. Sai Kumar ... PETITIONER AND Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) and others.
...RESPONDENTS WP.Nos.21265 and 28268 of 2011: BETWEEN Tadeparti Venkata Appala Narasimha Sarma and another.
... PETITIONERS AND Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. M.S.R. SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These three writ petitions are similar, hence, are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. On behalf of the official respondents, counter affidavit is filed only in WP.No.15350 of 2013.
3. However, the issue involved lies in a narrow compass.
Each of the petitioners in these writ petitions filed applications under Section 3(1) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). While the said applications were pending before the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), notices were given to the petitioners in WP.Nos.21265 and 28268 of 2011 fixing the date of appearance and enquiry on the said applications. However, no notice was issued to the petitioner in WP.No.15350 of 2013.
4. It appears that though the cases were posted for enquiry, they were adjourned from to time for further enquiry. However, on perusal of the official records viz. old Gazettes, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) came to the conclusion that the village itself is taken over by the Government under the Estates Abolition Act on 07.01.1959 and hence, conducting enquiry under the Act does not arise. With the said endorsement, therefore, the applications of the petitioners in each of the writ petitions were rejected.
5. The endorsement/rejection order is questioned in each of the writ petitions on various grounds, inter alia, that the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) has passed the impugned endorsement/order without giving opportunity to the petitioners and without hearing the petitioners on the ground on which the endorsement/order is passed. From a reading of the endorsement/order, it is apparent that the petitioners did not have any such notice of the ground of rejection as is found in the aforesaid endorsement/order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a similar matter in WP.No.922 of 2014, which was heard and disposed of by this Court by order dated 20.01.2014.
7. In the said matter also similar endorsement/order was passed while rejecting the application of the petitioner therein under the Act. This Court, therefore, felt that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity and hence, allowed the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:
“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.“
8. In the facts of the present case also the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, does not deal with the said ground raised by the petitioners and obviously, the impugned endorsement/order also do not indicate the ground of rejection, which is put against the petitioners was neither subject matter of any enquiry nor the petitioners had any opportunity to make submissions on the said aspect.
9. In view of the above, therefore, the respective impugned endorsements/orders in each writ petitions shall stand set aside and there shall be similar direction to the respondents as directed in WP.No.922 of 2014, extracted above.
The writ petitions are accordingly allowed, as above.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 15, 2014 DSK