This writ appeal questioned a single Judge's order remanding a land revision for fresh enquiry due to violation of natural justice. The High Court upheld the remand, finding no illegality in granting the petitioner liberty to obtain and address the disputed report.
The writ appeal was dismissed with no merit found in challenging the impugned order.
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.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.997 OF 2012
Dt: 14-08-2012.
Between:
PALADUGULA KUMARASWAMY .. APPELLANT
AND
G.VENUGOPAL RAO AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.997 OF 2012
JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
This writ appeal is directed against an order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge on 09-07-2012 in W.P.No.6296 of 2010, which was filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector in dismissing the revision bearing No.D1/782/2009, dated 28.02.2010 and confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent in Appeal No.D/3988/2008, dated 12.01.2008 as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same.
It appears from the facts that the revision petition filed under Section 9 of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 was dismissed on 28.02.2010 by the 1st respondent. The main grievance of the writ petitioner was without giving a chance to place either the facts or to place the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Bheemadevarapalli, which is the foundation of the revision, the revision was dismissed. In these circumstances, the order which was passed by the Joint Collector was challenged before the writ court. It appears that the Hon’ble single Judge, after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that copy of the report was not furnished to the petitioners and that non-furnishing the document, on which much reliance has been placed by the aggrieved party, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In these circumstances, his Lordship has set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after furnishing a copy of the report of Tahsildar, Bheemadevarapalli dated
29.12.2008 to the petitioner.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, this writ appeal is filed by the appellant.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, we find that there is no illegality or irregularity in respect of the impugned order passed by his Lordship remanding the matter for fresh enquiry by granting liberty to the petitioners to deal with the said report, after getting a copy, and also giving liberty to the contesting respondents to take all the points of law, as available, the matter to be decided by the appellate authority. It appears that on the question of violation of principles of natural justice, which has been the ground for remanding the matter to the appellate authority, in our opinion, cannot be questioned on the given facts. In view of that, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal and the same is dismissed.
( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )
( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,
J )
Dt: 14-08-2012. TNB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent could challenge the High Court's order remanding the land revenue case for fresh enquiry to address alleged violation of natural justice principles.
Whether granting liberty to the petitioner to obtain and deal with the Tahsildar's report constituted legality and regularity in the impugned remand order.
Paladugula Kumaraswamy
G. Venugopal Rao
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
