THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No. 692 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. V.Srikantha Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Ravi Kumar Vadlakonda, learned counsel for
respondent No.1. We have also heard Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy,
learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents No.2 to 5.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.25595 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the District Collector, Karimnagar mutating the name of the appellant in her revenue records as pattadar and possessor in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-06 guntas ::2::
situated in Survey No.463/B/A of Thummanapalli, Huzurabad Mandal in Karimnagar District (briefly 'the subject land' hereinafter). Respondent No.1 sought for a direction to the revenue authorities to mutate his name in place of the appellant and thereafter to issue pattadar pass book etc., in respect of the subject land.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition at the admission stage by setting aside the order of the District Collector, Karimnagar dated 28.03.2022 and remanding the matter back to the District Collector for a fresh decision. Such an order was passed without issuing notice to the appellant and without hearing her, though she was arrayed as respondent No.5 in the writ petition. If an opportunity of hearing would have been granted to the appellant, she would have persuaded the learned Single Judge not to interfere with the order of the District Collector dated 28.03.2022, which has created certain rights in the appellant.
::3::
5.' We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.06.2022. We do not find from the said order that notice was issued to the appellant, who was arrayed as respondent No.5 in the writ petition. Without issuing notice to the appellant (respondent No.5) and without giving her an opportunity to defend the order of the District Collector dated 28.03.2022 which was in her favour, learned Single Judge ought not to have set aside the same, though while remanding the matter back to the District Collector, he had directed that the affected parties be heard.
6. Be that as it may, in view of what has been discussed above, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.25595 of 2022 and remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge for a fresh consideration in accordance with law.
7. Appellant being respondent No.5 in W.P.No.25595 of 2022 shall file counter-affidavit within four weeks from today.
::4::
8. W.P.No.25595 of 2022 shall thereafter be listed before the learned Single Judge having roster on 26.12.2022.
9. Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 17.11.2022 LUR