Telangana High Court

G. Vittal, vs The Additional Agent To ... on 14 March, 2023

Bench: J Sreenivas Rao

                 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                        WRIT PETITION No.1250 OF 2008


Between:
G.Vittal, S/o, Late G. Nago Rao,
Aged about 36 years and another            ..                  Petitioners
                                          Vs.

The Additional Agent to Government and
Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Adilabad at Utnoor & 3 others.
                                                            .. Respondents

DATE OF THE ORDER PRONOUNCED:              14.03.2023




1.   Whether Reporters of Local newspapers                 Yes/No
     may be allowed to see the judgment?


2.   Whether the copies of judgment may be                 Yes/No
     marked to Law Reporters/Journals


3.   Whether his Lordship wish to                          Yes/No
     see the fair copy of the judgment?
                                           2




                  * HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

                       + WRIT PETITION No.1250 OF 2008


                           % DATED 14TH March, 2023

G.Vittal, S/o, Late G. Nago Rao,
Aged about 36 years and another..                                 ... Petitioners

                                         Vs.

The Additional Agent to Government and
Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Adilabad at Utnoor & 3 others.
                                                                  ... Respondents


<Gist:

>Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri V. Manohar Rao, Advocate


^Counsel for Respondents     : Government Pleader for Social Welfare
                               Sri G.Prashanth, Advocate

? CASES REFERRED:

1. 1976 (1) SCC 124
                                   3




             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

                 WRIT PETITION No.1250 of 2008
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari calling

for the records in Case in LTR Appeal No.A4/LTR/31/1985 on

the file of respondent No.1 and quash the order in LTR Appeal

No.A4/LTR/31/1985, dated 29.12.2007 confirming the orders of

respondent No.2 in Case No.TW/A2/848/1984, dated

24.04.1985.

2. Heard Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel representing

Sri V. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned

Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri G. Prashanth, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. In spite of the service of

notice to respondent No.4 she has not chosen to enter into

appearance.

3. Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners

contended that the petitioners are the owners of the land to an

extent of Acs.7.14 guntas in Survey No.52 situated at Lingi

village and the same was acquired from their father. He further

submits that due to ill health of their father in the year 1982-83

he has taken assistance of respondent No.3 who is his relative,

for doing agricultural activities.

4. He further submits that respondent No.2 has initiated

suomoto proceedings while exercising the powers conferred under

Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations

1959 read with amended regulation of 1970 (hereinafter called as

'Regulations' in brevity) on the alleged ground that the transfer

has been taken place between petitioner's father and respondent

No.3 and the same is in contravention of the Regulations and the

respondent No.2 has passed the ejectment order on 24.04.1985

without giving any notice and opportunity to the petitioner's

father. He further submits that as soon as they came to know

about the passing of ejectment order, petitioner's father filed

appeal before respondent No.1 and during the pendency of the

appeal, petitioner's father died. After receiving notices to appear

before respondent No.1, the petitioners have appeared before

respondent No.1 on 29.12.2007 and requested time for filing

documents. But respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal and

confirmed the order of respondent No.2 on 29.12.2007.

5. He also contended that respondent No.2 has not issued any

notice and passed ejectment order on 24.04.1985 behind back of

the petitioner's father alleging that respondent No.3 appeared in

the proceedings and given a statement that the subject land has

been taken on lease towards money loan from petitioner's father

and the same is hit by Section 2(g) of Regulations. He further

submits that respondent No.3 has never appeared before

respondent No.2 and has not given any statement. The

petitioners in the statutory appeal raised specific ground that the

petitioner's father has not received any notice and the

respondent No.2 has passed the ejectment order which is clear

violation of the principles of natural justice. Respondent No.1

while dismissing the appeal has not given any reason in respect

of non service of notice to petitioner's father and simply

confirmed the orders passed by respondent No.2. He also

contended that provisions of Regulations are not applicable to

the subject land and the transaction took place prior to the

Regulations came into effect. The respondent No.2 without

verifying any documents simply passed the ejectment order. In

support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the

judgment reported in City Corner Vs. Personal Assistant to

Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Nellore1.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare

submits that respondent No.2 issued notice which was refused

by petitioner's father and the same was affixed to his house.

7. When this Court directed the learned Assistant Government

Pleader to produce the proof of service of notice, learned

Assistant Government Pleader placed the copy of the notice

before this Court. After going through the notice it clearly reveals

that a copy of the notice is affixed to the house which reads as

1976(1)SCC124

follows:

"ఈ ారము సుకోనుటకు ాక ించుట ే ఇంటికి అ కించ ైన ి."

Sd/-

XXXXXX MRI, Thalamadugu Dt.10.06.1985

8. The above said notice clearly reveals that on 10.06.1985

notice was affixed to the petitioner's father's house, where as the

ejectment orders were passed by respondent No.2 on 24.04.1985.

It clearly shows that prior to the passing of the order no notice

was issued to the petitioner's father. Learned counsel for the

petitioners has rightly contended that respondent No.2 without

issuing any notice and without giving reasonable opportunity to

the petitioner's father passed the ejectment order basing on the

alleged ground that respondent No.3 has given statement.

Though the respondent No.3 filed sworn affidavit before this

Court stating that he has not appeared before respondent No.2

and has not given any statement and further submits that there

is no transaction between the petitioner's father and respondent

No.3. These facts are disputed questions of fact. The above said

disputed questions of facts are to be determined by the

competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 by considering the

evidence and this Court is not inclined to decide the disputed

questions of fact.

9. No order adverse to a party should be passed without

hearing them. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Udit Narain

Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue2, relied

upon the judgment in King v. London County Council

[(1931) 2 KB 215, 243] stating as follows:

"Wherever any body of persons (1) having legal authority (2) to determine questions affecting rights of subjects and (3) having the duty to act judicially (4) act in excess of their legal authority -- a writ of certiorari may issue". It will be seen from the ingredients of judicial act that there must be a duty to act judicially. A tribunal, therefore, exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial act cannot decide against the rights of a party without giving him a hearing or an opportunity to

2 AIR 1963 SC 786

represent his case in the manner known to law. If the provisions of a particular statute or rules made thereunder do not provide for it, principles of natural justice demand it. Any such order made without hearing the affected parties would be void. As a writ of certiorari will be granted to remove the record of proceedings of an inferior tribunal or authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial acts, ex hypothhesi it follows that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction shall also act judicially in disposing of the proceedings before it.

10. However, without going into the other aspects of the case, it

is already stated supra that respondent No.2 passed ejectment

order dated 24.04.1985 without issuing notice to the affected

parties i.e., petitioner and the same amounts to clear violation of

principles of natural justice. While respondent No.2 exercising

the quasi judicial powers conferred under Regulations ought to

have followed the principles of natural justice. On this ground

the impugned ejectment order dated 24.04.1985 passed by

respondent No.2 which was confirmed by respondent No.1 by its

order dated 29.12.2007 are set aside and the matter is remitted

back to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is directed to pass

orders afresh in Case No.TW/A2/848/1984 after giving notice