WA/2063/2004 of Sampathi Brahmaiah, Vs The Secretary, Department of Revenue, on 28 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, CHIEF JUSTICE

and

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY

WRIT APPEAL NO : 2063 of 2004

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated30/08/2004 in WP NO : 15401 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:

Sampathi Brahmaiah, S/o.Late Sri venkaiah, R/o.Korremula (V), Ghatkesar Mandal of R.R.District.

..... APPELLANT

AND

1 The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Governmetn of A.P. Secretariat,Hyderabad.

2 The District Collector, R.R.District at Hyderabad.

3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Rangareddy District East Division, Hyderabad.

4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, of R.R.District.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant: MR.D.GOVARDHANACHARYCounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following Oral Judgment: (per Sri Devinder Gupta, CJ)

Appeal is against the order of the learned single judge dated 30.8.2004 in WritPetition No. 15401 of 200 dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage by aspeaking order with the observations that the writ petition is nothing but speculativein nature and cannot be entertained.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In the writ petition challenge by the petitioner was to the order of respondent incancelling pattas in Survey No. 867 vide common order in proceedings No. B/2057to 61, 2183, 2184 and 3270/2000, dated 28.3.2002 of 3[rd] respondent andB1/296/2000, dated 19.4.2000 of the 4[th] respondent and making attempts todispossess the appellant-petitioner from the land as illegal, arbitrary andunconstitutional.

In Proceedings dated 19.4.2000 of Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, though, reference was made to land in Survey No. 867 and name of the appellant’sfather was shown at Sl. No.55, but, there is no report in respect of the said Surveynumber and report was filed only with respect to Survey Nos. 870,853,872,871 and873. No notice was issued to appellant.

Admittedly, no notice was issued to the appellant before passing the order ofresumption. The learned single judge though proceeded to record the statement ofthe learned counsel for the appellant, but turned down the same on merits on theground that the writ petition was speculative in nature. Learned single judge alsoobserved that the claim of the appellant-petitioner that he is still in possession andnot violated the conditions of the assignment was devoid of merits. But, to turn downsuch a petition as speculative and then to negative the claim of the appellant cannotbe sustained. In our view, appellant ought to have been heard at least after claimingcounter affidavit from the respondents as to the stand of the appellant.

The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the learned singlejudge is set aside. The writ petition is directed to be heard and decided afresh by thelearned single judge in accordance with law. Writ petition be posted before thelearned single judge on 25.1.2005. Till then, status-quo shall continue to bemaintained in respect of the land in question.

______________________

DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ

Date: 28[th] December, 2004

_______________________

M. NARAYANA REDDY,J

To

1 The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Governmetn of A.P.

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 The District Collector, R.R. District at Hyderabad.

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District East Division, Hyderabad.

4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, of R.R.District.

5 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT)

6 Two C.D. copies