Ch. Papa Naidu vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

G. Bikshapathy, J.—In the present Writ Petition the Petitioner assails G.O.Ms. No. l93 (Revenue) dated 15-2-1992.

The facts leading to the case are that the Petitioner was assigned the land having an extent of Ac.2-30 cents in S. No. 421/7 of Siddivaram village on 31-7-1980. It appears that at the instance of the 6th Respondent, the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle, the 4th Respondent herein passed an order on 30-6-1991 reserving the land which is allotted to the Petitioner for communal purposes. Against the said order, the Petitioner filed an appeal to the Joint Collector. At the time of admission, the Joint Collector granted suspension of the order of the Sub-Collector on l-8-1981,however stay was vacated on 12-5-1982. Thereafter the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner for Land Revenue, the 2nd Respondent herein and the same was rejected on 14-10-1984, thereafter the Petitioner filed the Revision to the Government challenging the order of the Commissioner for Land Revenue. The Petitioner has been attending to the matter and when notice issued by the Government, however, it appears that the case was posted on 18-1-1992 for which, a notice was directed to be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddamandyam. However, the said Mandal Revenue Officer issued notice on 14-1-1992 informing that the Revision filed before the Government is posted on 18-1-1992 at 11 A.M., the said notice was served on the Petitioner on 17-1-1992. The Petitioner submitted that he is not in a position to attend the revision proceedings before the 1st Respondent, at Hyderabad, as he cannot reach Hyderabad within time to attend the revision proceedings. The 1st Respondent passed orders in G.O.Ms. No. 193 (Revenue) dated 15-2-1992 dismissing the Revision on the ground that the Petitioner was not present. In para 8 of the said G.O., it is stated that the Revision came for hearing on 18-l-1992,bothPetitioner and the respondent are absent and therefore the 1st Respondent perused the records and passed the orders dismissing the revision. Consequently he vacated the status quo order issued earlier while admitting the Revision.

The Government have not filed any counter.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the notice of hearing of the Revision was signed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddamandyam on 14-1-1992 and the same was served on the petitioner on 17-1-1992. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient advance notice, the Petitioner is not in a position to attend the revision proceedings at Hyderabad. Therefore, he submits that the order of the 1st Respondent without hearing the petitioner is wholly illegal and arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside.

He further submits that non-attendance of the petitioner on 18-1-1992 is neither wilful nor intentional, but it is beyond his reach, as it is impossible for the petitioner to go over to Hyderabad, when the notice was received only on 17-1-1992.

I have perused the original notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddamandyam wherein the Mandal Revenue Officer signed on 14-1-1992 and as per the endorsement of the petitioner, it was only received on 17-1-1992. Under these circumstances, it is to be held that the petitioner was not given sufficient time and opportunity to represent his case on 18-1-1992. Therefore the impugned G.O. is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the 1st Respondent shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner fixing the date of hearing well in advance and after hearing the petitioner appropriate orders shall be passed. This exercise shall be conducted by the 1st Respondent within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of this order.