THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.15290 of 2011
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to order dated 26.03.2011 passed in case No.D1/60/2006, D1/5873/2006 on the file of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, by respondent No.1 confirming the order, dated 01.09.2006, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Tahsildar, Kesampet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, and quash the same.
Brief facts of the case are that the grand father of the petitioner herein by name late Mohd. Ghousuddin had purchased the dry land admeasuring Acs.14-25 guntas situated in survey No.366 of Kothapet Village, Kesampet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, under a registered sale deed vide document No.635/1967, dated 10.05.1967. After the death of Mohd. Ghousuddin, his sons viz., Mohd.Jahangiruddin, Azeemuddin, Muneeruddin and Khaza Moinuddin got impleaded their names in the revenue records in respect of Acs.3.05 gts., Acs.4.02 gts., Acs.4.00 gts. and Acs.3.00 gts., respectively, in the year 1988. As per the said arrangement, the father of the petitioner late Mohd.Muneeruddin got an extent of Acs.4.00 gts., out of the total extent of Acs.14.25 gts., and accordingly the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in favour of the father of the petitioner. While so, respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein filed an application under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, (in short 'ROR Act') seeking regularization of alienation of a private sale deed dated 04.05.1983 alleged to have been executed by the father of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.4-00 guntas in 2 AAR, J W.P.No.15290 of 2011 survey No.366 of Kothapet Village, Kesampet Mandal, Mahabub- nagar District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property') before the respondent No.3. However, without issuing any notice either to the transferor or his legal heirs, as per Rule 22(3) of the ROR Act, respondent No.3, vide order, dated 30.12.2005, has regularized the private sale deed dated 04.05.1983. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar. Vide order, dated 01.09.2006, passed in file No.B/ROR/107/2006, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Challenging the order, dated 01.09.2006, the petitioner preferred a Revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act before the respondent No.1 and the same was also dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 26.03.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
While admitting the writ petition, on 08.06.2011, this Court directed the Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Tahsildar, not to issue pattedar passbook and title deed in favour of the unofficial respondents.
Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit stating that the father of the writ petitioner had sold away the subject land in favour of the unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein through private sale deed dated 04.05.1983 and also delivered possession. As regards possession, the enquiry and panchanama were conducted on 21.10.2005 by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Keshampet, and the same revealed that the unofficial respondents are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject lands since 20 years. It is further averred that as on the date of issuance of notice, the whereabouts of the petitioner are not known. Even at 3 AAR, J W.P.No.15290 of 2011 the time of filing the revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, the writ petitioner has mentioned the residential address as if he is residing in Kothapet (V) and he has not given his original address to serve the notices. Therefore, the notices could not be served on the petitioner on the given address. In such a situation, the authorities cannot be faulted with. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Unofficial respondents have also filed a counter denying the material averments made in the writ petition and stating that late Mohammed Muneeruddin is also survived by other children who never participated in any of the proceedings, which shows that the claim of the petitioner is only to protract the litigation and to extort money. It is further stated that the petitioner without approaching the competent Civil Court for declaration of his title by canceling the sale deed, had filed this writ petition and the same is not maintainable.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondents, and Sri Mohammed Ilyas, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is a settled proposition of law that before changing/mutating the names in the revenue records, the authorities are obligated to put the person in whose name the entries are already recorded on notice and afford an opportunity of hearing before passing any order. In the case of hand, without serving any notice on the petitioner or his father or any of the legal heirs of his father, the authorities have caused mutation in favour of unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 7. Even the respondent No.1 has dismissed the revision filed by the 4 AAR, J W.P.No.15290 of 2011 petitioner, without issuing any notice, and the same is not only illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and equity but also the provisions of the Act.
The learned Government Pleader has contended that the notice was issued to the petitioner by the authorities to the address mentioned in the revision petition. However, as the petitioner was not residing in the said address, the notice could not be served on him. Having mentioned a wrong address in the revision petition, the petitioner cannot blame the authorities for not serving the notice on him. Hence, the impugned order cannot be faulted with.
Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has contended that having lost the case before the primary, appellate and revisional authorities, the petitioner has come up with the plea that he was not put on notice by the revisional authority and the same cannot be entertained at this stage. All the authorities have categorically held that the father of the petitioner has sold away the property in favour of the unofficial respondents and they were also put in possession. Absolutely there are no merits in the writ petition which warrant any interference with the orders of the primary, appellate and revisional authority.
A reading of the order passed by the Joint Collector clearly reveals that the petitioner herein was not put on notice. It is stated in the impugned order that the petitioner was not available in the village and therefore the notice could not be served on him. Irrespective of the reason for not serving any notice on the petitioner, the fact remains that the petitioner was not served any notice. When the respondents herein have filed an application for regularization of their sale deed, the primary authority, as per Rule 5 AAR, J W.P.No.15290 of 2011 22 of the ROR Rules, is obligated to issue notice to the concerned or interested parties. Admittedly, no notice was issued in the present case. If it is the case of the official respondents that the petitioner was not available in the village, they ought to have taken the necessary steps to see that the notice was served on the petitioner on the correct address or they could had taken steps for substitute service by way of paper publication in the local news paper or the area of the last known address of the petitioner, which they have not done for the reasons best known to them.
The provisions of the ROR Act as well as the principles of natural justice mandate that the notice should be served on the party concerned before any adverse order effecting the rights of the parties are passed.
In Santosh Verma vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District1 a Full Bench of this Court has reiterated the modes of service of notice on the aggrieved persons, as mandated under Rule 22 of the ROR Rules.
For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the above referred judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if both the impugned orders passed by the Joint Collector as well as the appellate authority are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer-respondent No.2 to pass orders, afresh, strictly on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, all the interested persons shall be put on 1 2011 (3) ALT 683 (FB) 6 AAR, J W.P.No.15290 of 2011 notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 07-04-2021 sur