Writ appeal challenging the single judge's order disposing of a writ petition without issuing notice. This High Court held that an opportunity of hearing was mandatory
Writ appeal allowed; impugned order set aside and remanded to the learned single judge for disposal after affording an opportunity to parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.444 of 2021
(Through video conferencing)
Khaja Bee, W/o Late Shaik Hussain Peera, Aged 50 years, R/o T. Chanugondla Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District and others.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, being represented by Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others.
…Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Nageswara Rao Turaga Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 : Mr.J.U.M.V. Prasad
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt:14.09.2021
(per Ninala Jayasurya, J)
Heard Mr. Nageswara Rao Turaga, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6/writ petitioners.
HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.444/2021
2
“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking any action for considering the representation, dated 06.08.2019 submitted by the petitioners seeking to issue the pattadar pass book and title deed and by mutating their names in the concerned revenue records in pursuance to the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.43/2004, dated 23.04.2019 even after receiving the report from the 3rd respondent as long back as on 25.08.2020 in Rc.No.B/196/2020 submitted to him, even after lapse of almost two months as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take steps in the light of the report submitted by the 3rd respondent on the aforesaid representation of the petitioners forthwith, and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper.”
The above writ petition was filed on 05.10.2020 and disposed of on 12.10.2020.
HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.444/2021
3
pending. He also submits that as no notice was issued to the appellants and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them, the appellants are deprived of presenting their case before the learned single Judge. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioners also refers to a writ petition stated to have been filed by the present appellants in W.P.No.11910 of 2019.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Nn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge could dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage without issuing notice to the appellants?
Whether the appellants were afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed against them in the pending litigation?
Khaja Bee and others
State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI
NINALA JAYASURYA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
