Sam Zal Bastawala v. Joint Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy & Ors.

The petitioner has challenged the order of the Joint Collector –first respondent, dated 28.6.2001 by which the revision petition filed by the 4th respondent herein was allowed.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner through his fore fathers was the owner of land in Sy.No. 218 situated at Ramachandrapuram village, Medak district, apart from several other Sy.Nos. 196, 197, 202 etc. The petitioner contends that for the purpose of national highway, the land in Sy.Nos. 196, 197 and 202 was acquired and his parents were paid compensation and the petitioner, as their legal heir, is the owner of the entire land including Sy.No. 218, admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. The petitioner contends that the said land was wrongly recorded in the name of 4th respondent and as such he approached the Mandal Revenue Officer for rectification of the record of rights under Section 3 (3) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 r/w. Rule 15 of the Rules, 1989. The Mandal Revenue Officer, after notice to the 4th respondent herein, had allowed the rectification of record of rights in favour of the petitioner and the appeal filed by the 4th respondent against the said order was also dismissed. However, on further revision filed by the 4th respondent before the Joint Collector, the first respondent herein, the said revision has been allowed under the impugned order.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 or the 4th respondent. No counter is filed by any of the respondents.

While admitting the writ petition on 22.4.2002, this Court passed a reasoned order granting interim suspension of the impugned order. The said order continues to be in force.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends inter alia that the Joint Collector-1st respondent allowed the revision petition without adequate notice and opportunity to the petitioner and as such the principles of natural justice are violated. He also contends that even on merits the impugned order is not sustainable.

A reading of the impugned order shows that in paragraph-2 itself it is stated that there was a caveat application earlier filed by the petitioner and when the revision came up before the Joint Collector on 9.11.2000, the counsel the petitioner made a representation undertaking to file vakalat, but thereafter since there were no dates intimated, he could not file the vakalat and ultimately the Joint Collector passed the order on the ground that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner herein. This Court has passed an order on 7.11.2008 requiring the Government Pleader for Revenue to produce the record in proof of service of notice on the petitioner in the proceedings before the 1st respondent. Neither any such record is produced nor there is any representation. In the absence of any records or counter-affidavit, it has to be presumed that there is no proof of service of notice on the petitioner and as such the hearing and disposal of the revision by the 1st respondent is clearly ex parte and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained.

Even otherwise, so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer in proceedings No. B/2458/2000, dated 7.9.2000 shows that the 4th respondent was notified of the rectification application filed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent had also filed a reply vide reference No. HY/TA/CIVIl/654/6807/2000, dated

17.8.2000 stating that

the land in question is in the possession of the owners namely Sam Zal Bastawala and Sarosh Sam Bastawala and the management of B.H.E.L. has no right, interest or claim of any nature over the said land. Therefore, the B.H.E.L. has no objection for the rectification of the revenue records as stated therein.

Consequently, therefore, the Mandal Revenue Officer being satisfied, granted the said rectification in favour of the petitioner. Surprisingly, however, the 4th respondent had preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer who went a step further and verified from the notification published in the A.P. Gazette Part-I Extraordinary dated

18.12.1961 as to whether Sy.No. 218 was acquired for the purpose of 4th respondent and came to the conclusion that such a survey number does not form part of the land acquired by the 4th respondent. Further in view of the fact that the 4th respondent had submitted no objection letter before the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not find the case fit enough to admit the appeal also. Surprisingly thereafter a revision was filed by the 4th respondent before the 1st respondent which has been allowed under the impugned order on a complete mis- conception that the land was acquired by the 4th respondent in ignorance of the A.P. Gazette notification and also the reply filed by the 4th respondent before the Mandal Revenue Officer. The impugned order of the 1st respondent is, therefore, not sustainable even on merits and is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 12.12.2008 KR // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 Joint Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. 4. 2 CCs to GP for Revenue 5. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}