Mohd. Saleemuddin vs The Joint Collecotr,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1103 Tel

     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