THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 392 OF 2012 Date of Judgment: 5.9.2014 Between:
Mr. U. Narasimha Goud and another …Petitioners And The Tahsildar, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda district and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 392 OF 2012 ORDER:
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
The petitioners state that they are the owners and possessors of agricultural land admeasuring 0-39 ½ guntas in Sy.No. 439/E situated at Yellareddygudem village, Narketpalli Mandal, Nalgonda district. It is stated that Sy.No. 439 covers land of Ac.16-14 guntas which belonged to one Banda Showraiah and after his demise, his two sons who are his successors partitioned the same equally. The petitioners claim title to the land of 0-36 ½ guntas under a registered sale deed dated 9.3.2011 and they applied and were granted pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the said land. However, the 4th respondent approached the respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer by filing a complaint on 23.7.2011 complaining that the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued to the petitioners were required to be cancelled on the ground that the land claimed by the petitioners is part of the road.
On receipt of the said complaint, the 2nd respondent called for a report from the 1st respondent-Tahsildar and based on the said report, he passed the impugned order holding that the boundaries mentioned in the registered document of the petitioners are false and therefore, the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued to the petitioners deserved to be cancelled and accordingly they were cancelled. The said order is questioned in the present writ petition primarily on the ground that it was passed without notice to the petitioners.
Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of 2nd respondent wherein in paragraph-4 it is stated as follows, “In reply to para No.6, it is submitted that during the local inquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor, and Mandal Revenue Inspector of Narkatpally Mandals it is determined that the petitioners have purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.36½ guntas in Survey No.439 of Yellareddygudem Village of Narkatpally Mandal vide document No.3831/2011 Pahani, The said land is being used as Road and accordingly the entry of possession column is found as Road though the land stands in the name of Bandha Innaiah in pattadar column. However the petitioners by taking advantage of patta of the said land in the name of Bandha Innaiah in pattedar’s column got executed document and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed through the Tahsidlar, Narkatpaly Mandal. It is a fact that the pass book and title deed will be issued for the land used as agriculture only, subject to holding of patta and possession by the person whereas the petitioners have purchased the road which is not agricultural land or holding possession of the land. It is admitted that notice could not be issued to the petitioner taking into consideration that the transaction taken place for land which is being used as road as reported by respondent No.1 herein and also to take stock of the situation but not otherwise which may kindly be excused.”
It could be evident from the last four lines of the aforesaid paragraph that the petitioners were admittedly not given any notice before passing the impugned order, but the 2nd respondent justified the impugned order due to exigency of situation, for which he seeks to be excused.
4th respondent also filed a counter-affidavit inter alia stating that the violation of principles of natural justice in the present case is not fatal, as even if they were followed, the petitioners would not have improved the case, as the land claimed by them forms part of the road.
Evidently the petitioners’ civil rights are affected by the impugned order which cancels their pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the aforesaid land. It, therefore, cannot be gainsaid that even if violation of principles of natural justice takes place, the same is not fatal. The counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent, which is extracted above, having clearly established that the petitioners were not given any prior notice and were not heard before passing the impugned order, the same is clearly unsustainable.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set aside. However, this will not preclude the 2nd respondent from issuing fresh notice to the petitioners as well as to the 4th respondent and after hearing them, consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 5.9.2014 KR