Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1205 (AP)

S. Indira v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-08-27

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2024
ORDER : (Ravi Cheemalapati, J.) : The case of the petitioner is that, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.02.00 cents situated in Sy.No. 547-A at Guntakal Village and Mandal, Anantapur District and ever since she purchased, she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property her name was mutated in the revenue records and the Tahsildar has also issued pattadar passbook and title deeds in the name of the petitioner. 2. It is her further contention that, when the petitioner’s land was shown under the prohibitory list, she approached the revenue authorities for deletion of the said land and the same was not done. As such, the petitioner got filed the writ petition vide W.P. No.25644 of 2020 wherein this Court gave a direction to the respondents to complete the process of deletion of the petitioner’s land from the prohibitory list within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018 and communicate the deletion order to the 5th respondent-Sub Registrar immediately under its order dated 08.02.2021. As the authorities have not complied the directions of this Court, the petitioner got filed the contempt case vide C.C. No.2037 of 2021 wherein the 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit along with rejection order, questioning the said rejection order the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 4. Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that, the petitioner got purchased the subject property under registered sale deed wherein more than five transactions were made on the said land from 1943 and in spite of the said registered documents, the revenue authorities have put the subject property in the prohibitory list. In fact, pattadar passbook and title deeds were also issued in favor of the petitioner by duly mutating the petitioner’s name in the revenue records. Surprisingly in rejection order, the subject land was shown as ‘Banjar Government Dry’. The Collector while passing the rejection order did not answer on the documents filed by the petitioner i.e., sale deed vide Regd. Doc.No.661/1943 dated 14.05.1943, sale deed vide Regd. Doc.No.449/1976 dated 23.04.1976, Unregistered family partition deed dated 26.07.2004 and sale deed vide Regd. Surprisingly in rejection order, the subject land was shown as ‘Banjar Government Dry’. The Collector while passing the rejection order did not answer on the documents filed by the petitioner i.e., sale deed vide Regd. Doc.No.661/1943 dated 14.05.1943, sale deed vide Regd. Doc.No.449/1976 dated 23.04.1976, Unregistered family partition deed dated 26.07.2004 and sale deed vide Regd. Doc.No.4288/2012 dated 14.09.2012 which is the petitioner’s sale deed. The Collector simply by relying on the report of the Tahsildar wherein he has stated that the subject land was not assigned to anybody till the date and recommended for rejection of the application made by the petitioner. 5. Taking the said recommendations into consideration, the petitioner’s application was rejected. No reasons are coming forward as to why the Collector has not taken due note of the registered documents filed by the petitioner. It itself shows that the order has been passed in a casual manner and without proper application of mind. The said order is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and no opportunity of being heard was also provided by the Collector before passing the impugned proceedings. On these grounds, the said order is liable to be set aside and remand back the matter to the Collector to pass a fresh reasoned order by duly taking into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner further by providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and accordingly prayed to pass orders in that regard. 6. On the other hand, Sri Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents, on counter contended that, this Court directed the Collector to pass orders on the petitioner’s application for deletion of the subject property from the prohibitory list by duly taking into consideration of G.O.Ms.No.575, dated 16.11.2018. The petitioner has not submitted any document assignment particulars of the subject land. The Collector has taken the recommendations of the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer and rightly rejected the petitioner’s application. There is neither irregularity nor illegality in passing the order and petitioner has not made out any grounds warranting the interference of this Court, the writ petition deserves dismissal and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the record. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s subject private property has been included into the prohibitory property list without even looking into the record and without issuing any notice to the petitioner. 7. Perused the record. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s subject private property has been included into the prohibitory property list without even looking into the record and without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is claiming the subject property under registered sale deed dated 14.09.2012. The case of the petitioner is that, prior to the petitioner’s purchase; there are several registered sale deed transactions that took place as follows. (i) Sale deed vide Regd. Doc.No.661/1943 dated 14.05.1943, (ii) Sale deed vide Regd. Doc.No.449/1976 dated 23.04.1976, (iii) Unregistered family partition deed dated 26.07.2004 and (iv) Sale deed vide Regd. Doc.No.4288/2012 dated 14.09.2012 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the subject land is not assigned land but by mistake the said G.O. has been referred by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation. A perusal of the order impugned vide Rc.No.E4/1273/2021, dated 21.12.2021, though the Collector has taken due note of the documents filed by the petitioner but did not give any reasons for discarding the said documents relied by the petitioner except stating that the petitioner has not submitted any document with regard to the assignment. Further, the Collector has relied on the report of the Tahsildar and the RDO where they have stated that the said land was not assigned to anybody till date and recommended for rejection. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that the said report was not served on the petitioner and asked any explanation on the same before relying on the said report while rejecting the petitioner’s application without supplying the said document. Taking a decision and thereby passing orders is contrary to the settled principles of law. 11. It is well established principle of administrative law that if an adjudicatory body wants to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he must be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings. 12. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Collector has relied on the recommendations of the RDO and Tahsildar and thereby rejected the petitioner’s application without supplying the said recommendations to the petitioner. In view of the same, the order impugned is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Further stated supra, the documents which were relied by the petitioner, were also not taken or dealt by the Collector while rejecting the petitioner’s application. 13. Further the Collector is also not provided an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner while rejecting the petitioner’s application. In these circumstances the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the same shall be remitted back to the Collector concerned for passing fresh orders. 14. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings vide Rc. No. E4/1273/2021, dated 21.12.2021, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned Collector for fresh adjudication. The Collector is directed to pass appropriate orders afresh by providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner by taking into consideration the documents relied by the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.