Smt.Thangellapally Sujatha vs Ambati Sudhakar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4509 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                      AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


               WRIT APPEAL No.579 of 2022

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



       Heard Mr. Hari Kishan Kudikala, learned counsel for

the appellant; Mr. Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel

for respondent No.1; and Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswara

Rao, learned Government Pleader appearing for

respondents No.2 to 5.

2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against

the order dated 15.06.2022 passed by the learned Single

Judge disposing of W.P.No.22242 of 2022 filed by

respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.

3. Respondent No.1 had filed the writ petition seeking a

direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Husnabad

Division, to take action as per the direction of the District

Collector, Siddipet, vide letter dated 03.02.2022. Learned

Single Judge vide the order dated 15.06.2022 directed the

Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Tahsildar to take

immediate action pursuant to the letter dated 03.02.2022

of the District Collector after duly putting the other parties,

including the appellant, on notice.

4. As per letter dated 03.02.2022, District Collector had

forwarded the complaint filed by respondent No.1 along

with annexures regarding land issue in Survey No.143

situated at Narsaipally Village to the Revenue Divisional

Officer to enquire into the contents of the complaint and

thereafter to take necessary action in the matter. Revenue

Divisional Officer was directed to submit action taken

report to the District Collector.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

appellant being respondent No.5 in the writ petition,

learned Single Judge ought to have issued notice to her

before disposing of the writ petition. The writ petition was

disposed of without issuing notice to respondent No.5 and

consequently without hearing the said respondent.

6. Ordinarily before disposing of a writ petition, the

parties are required to be put on notice and heard.

However, when writ petitions are disposed of in a manner

which does not affect the rights of the parties and whereby

at the consequential stage the parties are put to notice and

are heard, no exception can be taken to such a course of

action. In the instant case, District Collector had

forwarded the complaint of respondent No.1 to the Revenue

Divisional Officer to cause enquiry into the land issue

raised. Learned Single Judge has held that the Revenue

Divisional Officer as well as the Tahsildar should take

action on the aforesaid letter of the District Collector and in

the process, to put the unofficial respondents including the

appellant on notice.

7. We find from the paper book that already appellant

has filed objections before the revenue authorities. In that

view of the matter, we clarify that while carrying out the

enquiry as directed by the District Collector, Revenue

Divisional Officer shall look into all aspects of the matter

and issue notice to the affected persons, including the

appellant, whereafter appropriate steps may be taken but

only after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all

concerned in accordance with law.

8. With the above modification of the order dated

15.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.22242 of 2022, writ appeal is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J

08.09.2022 vs