HC - The law is well settled that before any action, which is likely to adversely affect the interests of a party, is taken, he shall be put on notice and informed of the grounds, on which, such action is proposed to be taken. If this fair procedure is not followed, such an action falls foul of the principles of natural justice and constitutes patent arbitrariness


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

 

Writ Petition No.11327 of 2010

 

% 16.12.2010


# L.Ramesh and others

...PETITIONERS
VERSUS

 

$ The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
...RESPONDENTS

 Counsel for PETITIONER: Sri B.Adinarayana Rao

^Counsel for RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Revenue

? Cases referred

1. 1967 SC 1269
2. 1978 SC 597
3. 981 SC 818

4.  (2007) 2 SCC 181

 


THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

 

Writ Petition No.11327 of 2010

 

DT.16.12.2010

 

Between:

 

L.Ramesh and others
… Petitioners

And

 

The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:  Sri B.Adinarayana Rao

                                                             

                                                       

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 :  AGP for Revenue

 

 

The Court made the following ORDER:



ORDER:

At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the petitioners’ request for grant of Patta Land Certificate under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948; cancelling the pattadar pass books issued in their favour in purported exercise of power under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and also directing respondent No.4 to correct the Village Accounts duly making entries in the Prohibitory Order Book in respect of the subject lands and to take possession of the same immediately, as arbitrary, illegal, improper, unjust and in violation of the provisions of the Acts and the principles of natural justice.
In the manner, in which, this case is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to record the facts in great detail.  It will suffice to note that an extent of Acs.25.00 of land in Survey Nos.167 to 170 of Erragunta Village and in Survey Nos.340 to 342 of Karakambadi Village of Renigunta Mandal, are covered by rough pattas.  The Tahsildar, Renigunta, i.e., Respondent No.4, has issued certificates to the effect that they are Dry Patta Lands, as per fair Adangal Register of Karakambadi and Erragunta Villages.  In the survey operations held in the year 1961, the land was classified as ‘rythu-layak-punja’ and ‘Karakambadi Cheruvu Neeti Mumpu’.  The petitioners have purchased these lands from the original owners and obtained provisional layout permission for conversion of the lands into house sites.  At that stage, respondent No.3 issued show-cause notice, dated 02.08.2005.  On receipt of explanation, he has passed order, dated 15.09.2005, wherein it is stated that in view of the technical opinion given by the Executive Engineer and having regard to the explanations offered by the petitioners, the show-cause notice is rescinded, under benefit of doubt, with a direction not to interfere with the water course.  Later on, the petitioners received a notice from the District Revenue Officer calling upon them to appear before the Joint Collector on 01.12.2008 at 11.00 am with all documents. 
Thereafter, the Joint Collector issued the impugned endorsement, dated 21.04.2010, giving various directions.  In his endorsement, respondent No.2 rejected the request of the petitioners to issue Patta Land Certificate, cancelled the NOCs, dated 05.10.2004, issued by respondent No.4 and the pattadar pass books issued to the petitioners in respect of the above lands under Sections 9 and 12 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.  Respondent No.2 further directed that all the submerged lands as per the details furnished by the Tahsildar, Renigunta will remain as water bodies and these lands are restored with original classification of ‘tank’ with their respective tanks.  In the endorsement, the Tahsildar, Renigunta was directed to see that the possession of the lands is taken immediately and are protected. 
This endorsement is questioned in this writ petition on various grounds.  Inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that no show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioners indicating therein the grounds on which the action was proposed to be taken, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law.  Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to refer to the contentions raised by the petitioners on merits.
A perusal of the impugned endorsement reflects the anxiety of respondent No.2 to protect the environment and the water bodies.  But, in the process of achieving this object, respondent No.2 failed to realize that the rights, if any, vested in a person cannot be taken away without following due process of law.  The law is well settled that before any action, which is likely to adversely affect the interests of a party, is taken, he shall be put on notice and informed of the grounds, on which, such action is proposed to be taken.  If this fair procedure is not followed, such an action falls foul of the principles of natural justice and constitutes patent arbitrariness (see State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi and others[1]Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[2]Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India[3] and Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT[4]).  Assuming that respondent No.2 is competent to take all those measures, which are envisaged in the impugned endorsement, he cannot exercise such powers unless he follows the procedure prescribed by law and conforms to the principles of natural justice.  Neither the impugned endorsement shows that any prior notice, except the one which is referred to above, calling upon the petitioners to produce the records, was given to the petitioners informing the grounds on which respondent No.2 is proposing to proceed against them nor the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents asserted that any such notice and opportunity were given to the petitioners. 
Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law, as it is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice.  The impugned endorsement is accordingly set aside. 
The writ petition is allowed with liberty to respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with the extant laws, after informing the petitioners of the grounds and the relevant provisions of the Acts, under which, he is seeking to proceed against them, and after giving full opportunity of being heard to them.
            As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 12.05.2010, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.14396 of 2010, stands vacated and W.P.M.P.No.14396 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.5875 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous.

(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

Date:16.12.2010
Note: LR copies to be marked.
                        (b/o)
VGB


[1] 1967 SC 1269
[2] 1978 SC 597
[3] 1981 SC 818
[4] (2007) 2 SCC 181

No comments:

Post a Comment