APHC010699672013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 36644/2013 Between: 1. LOKARAPU CHITTIBABU,, S/O. LATE BUTCHAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, AGENCY LAXMIPURAM, KRISHNADEVIPETA POST, GOLUGONDA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531 084. 2. LOKARAPU VENKATARAMANA,, S/O. LATE BUTCHAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, AGENCY LAXMIPURAM, KRISHNADEVIPETA POST, GOLUGONDA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531 084. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE (LTR-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ADDITIONAL AGENT TO GOVERNMENT AND PROJECT OFFICER, I.T.D.A., PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR TRIBAL WELFARE, PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR TRIBAL WELFARE, PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR KOYYURU VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, - 2 HGRKP,J W.P.No.36644 of 2013 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue an order or direction more in the nature of certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the order passed by the government in Lr.No.4986/LTR-II/2013, dated 23- 10-2013 and to quash the same as illegal, void, arbitrary, discriminatory and opposed to the mandatory provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 and consequentially the order of the Respondent No.2 confirming the order of rejection passed by the Respondent No.3 dated 17-11-2006 may also be quashed and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 45556 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents not to disturb the long standing possession of the petitioner in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.60/3 and 60/5 extents being Ac: 114 cents and Ac: 0-38 cents respectively situated in Ratnampeta Village pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P V MAHESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P.V.Mahesh, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Ms.Ch.Swapna Priya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the Respondents. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief: “an order or direction more in the nature of certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the order passed by the government in Lr.No.4986/LTR-II/2013 dated 23.10.2013 and to quash the same as illegal void arbitrary discriminatory and opposed to the mandatory 3 HGRKP,J W.P.No.36644 of 2013 provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 and consequentially the order of the Respondent No.2 confirming the order of rejection passed by the Respondent No.3 dated 17.11.2006 may also be quashed and to pass…” 3. On 16.12.2013, my predecessor has passed the following Order: “Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare takes notice for the respondents and seeks time for filing counter-affidavit. Post on 10.02.2014. On the next date of hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader shall place before the Court the certified copy of the order, dated 17.11.2006, supplied to the petitioners and filed before respondent No.2. Pending further orders, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands admeasuring Ac.1.14 cents in Survey No.60/3 and Ac.0.38 cents in Survey No.60/5 of Ratnampeta Village, Koyyuru Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.” 4. The docket would indicate that the learned Counsel for the Respondents had sought time to comply with the order dated 16.12.2013 but till date neither any Counter-Affidavit has been filed nor have the Official Respondent complied with the Interim Order of this Court dated 16.12.2013. Since, this writ petition is of the year 2013, this Court is not inclined to grant any further time as per the request of the learned Counsel for the Respondents for the purpose of filing Counter-Affidavit. 5. This Court has, therefore, sat down to consider the matter on the basis of the existing record. 6. Sri P.V.Mahesh, learned Counsel representing the Writ Petitioners (through online) has taken this Court through the Orders passed by the Court of Agency Divisional Officer and Special Deputy Collector dated 08.08.2002 and the Order passed in the Appeal filed by the Writ Petitioner dated 4 HGRKP,J W.P.No.36644 of 2013 17.11.2006. He has also taken this Court through the various other Proceedings also. 7. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the Order passed by the Primary Authority namely the Court of Agency Divisional Officer and Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) Paderu in LTR.No.574 of 1992. It is a non-speaking Order. The operative portion would read that the officer has perused the record and the name of the Respondents (Writ Petitioners herein) is incorporated in the 10(1) Adangal of the Revenue Record as owner of the subject property namely Ac.1.14 cents in Sy.No.60/3 and Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.60/5 of Ratnampeta Village. The said order dated 08.08.2002 would also state that the scheduled lands, upon verification, are noted in the name of one Sri Lingeti Gangaiah. Having recorded the same, the Agency Divisional Officer had directed eviction of the Writ Petitioners from the Scheduled Property by his order dated 08.08.2002 (Ex.P1). 8. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would contend that the order is per se self-contradictory, inasmuch as on one hand it notes that the name of the Respondent (Writ Petitioners) is recorded in 10(1) Adgangal of the Revenue Records as owner of the scheduled land, whereas on the other hand without reference to any revenue records, would state that the lands are noted in the name of one Sri Lingeti Gangaiah. He would also submit that except stating that the officer has perused the record, it is not mentioned in the order as to the nature of record, which is perused by the Primary Authority while passing the Order on 08.08.2002 (Ex.P1). 9. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would further submit that the appeal filed by the Writ Petitioners in A.S.No.52 of 2004 (LTR), the Court of Additional Agent to Government and Project Officer, I.T.D.A, Paderu, had passed final Order on 17.11.2006 (Ex.P5). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has taken this Court through the content of the Order that would 5 HGRKP,J W.P.No.36644 of 2013 indicate that the learned Counsel for the Appellants/Petitioners did not appear before the concerned Appellate Authority. However, the Order would also indicate that the son of the Appellant therein had appeared on various dates up to August, 2006. The Appellate Authority had dismissed the above mentioned Appeal on 17.11.2006 filed by the Writ Petitioners herein on the ground that the name of Sri Lingeti Gangaiah was registered in the Settlement Fair Adangdal (SFA) as per the observations made by the Deputy Collector in the order passed by the Primary Authority on 08.08.2002. It is also stated that the documents produced by the Appellant have not tallied with the Revenue Records. 10. It is further submitted that when the petitioners came to know about passing of the Order by the Appellate Authority belatedly, inasmuch as such order was never communicated to the Petitioners, the Petitioners have filed an Application under Right to Information Act, 2005, and the competent Authority had responded vide its Proceedings dated 22.05.2012 (Ex.P10) on the application submitted by him on 04.05.2012 (Ex.P9) that the Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA) of Ratnampeta Village of Koyyuru Mandal is not available, as the said record is gutted in fire at the time when the MRO office was blasted by Naxals in the year 2001. 11. It is further submitted that despite the fact that this information provided by the competent Authority under the Right to Information Act was also filed in the Revision Petition, the impugned Order came to be passed rejecting the claim of the Petitioners vide Civil Order dated 23.10.2013(Ex.P7) on the ground that the Revision Petition is filed by the Writ Petitioners belatedly. 12. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit the following: i. That the Order passed by the Primary Authority is cryptic in nature besides being self-contradictory; ii. That in the appeal, no notice was served to the Petitioner to enable the Counsel to appear in the final proceedings; 6 HGRKP,J W.P.No.36644 of 2013 iii. That on various dates, the son of the Appellant continued to appear in the Appeal Proceedings; iv. That the Appellate Authority has recorded that the name of Sri Lingeti Gangaiah has been recorded in the Settlement Fair Adangal as per the observation made by the Primary Authority whereas these observations of the Appellate Authority is belated by the non-furnishing by the competent Authority under the Right to Information Act on 22.05.2012(Ex.P10); v. That the Settlement Fair Adangal which is in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer got gutted in fire in the year 2001 because of the blast by the Naxals, it is impossible for either the Agency Divisional Officer and the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) or the Additional Agent to Government and the Project Director, ITDA to peruse such Settlement Fair Adangal; vi. That despite the fact that this Court vide Order dated 16.12.2013 had directed the Official Respondents to place the certified copy of the Order dated 17.11.2006 before the Court and also the proof of supplying such copy to the Writ Petitioners, the same has not been provided by the Official Respondents so far. 13. It is submitted that in view of the response under the RTI Act, the observation made by the Primary Authority as well as Appellate Authority that the name of Sri Lingeti Gangaiah is recorded in the SFA becomes doubtful. 14. The Revision Petition has been dismissed on the grounds of delay by the Appellate Order dated 17.11.2006 has never been furnished to the Appellant on time and therefore there is no delay on the part of the Writ Petitioners in filing the Revision. 15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Interim Order of this Court dated 16.12.2013 directing the official Respondents to produce certificate copy of the Order dated 17.11.2006 has 7 HGRKP,J W.P.No.36644 of 2013 not been complied with. Proof of the said certified copy would have in fact reflected whether the Petitioners was communicated with the Order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 17.11.2006 on time or not. The docket would also indicate that the Government Pleader had sought further time to comply with the Interim Order of this Court dated 16.12.2013 but the same has not been complied with. Discussion: 16. The record would disclose that the Official Respondents have neither filed any material documents nor counter. The Official Respondents have not complied with the Interim Order of this Court to produce the certified copy of the Order passed by the Appellate authority. The Interim Order has protected the Petitioners from being dispossessed in respect of Ac.1.14 cents in Sy.No.60/3 and Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.60/5. In this view of the matter, the Petitioners continued to remain in possession. At this stage, due to non- compliance of the interim order of this Court, this Court is rather constrained to draw an adverse inference against the Official Respondents. The response given by the competent Authority under RTI Act would clearly indicate that the Settlement Fair Adangal relating to Ratnampeta Village, got burnt in the year 2001 itself. Therefore, this Court is unable to countenance as to how the Primary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority had concluded that the name of Sri Lingeti Gangaiah has been recorded in the Settlement Fair Adangal when such SFA is not even not existing on the date the Primary Authority had passed the Order on 08.08.2002. In view of the above findings and also in view of the fact that the Official Respondents have not shown any proof to evidence the fact that the Order passed by Appellate Authority dated 17.11.2006 had ever been communicated to the Writ Petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding rendered by the Revisional Authority vide its Order dated 23.10.2013 (impugned herein) rejecting the Revision Petition of the Writ Petitioners on the ground of delay is unsustainable in law. 8 HGRKP,J W.P.No.36644 of 2013 17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.10.2013 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Revisional Authority namely the Principal Secretary to Government with a direction to consider the case of the Petitioners on merit without reference to the delay. The Respondent No.1- Principal Secretary is also directed to consider the documents submitted by the Writ Petitioners herein including the response dated 22.05.2012 (Ex.P10) under RTI and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of twelve (12) weeks from today and communicate a copy of the said order to the Writ Petitioners forthwith. Writ Petitioners are directed to submit a copy of this order within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of uploading on the website of this Court. Needless to state that it is the statutory obligation on the part of the competent authority namely the Principal Secretary to Government to adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice by providing opportunity to all the parties to place on record the additional pleadings and material documents, if they so desired and give personal hearing to the parties, if such request is made. 18. Writ Petitioners shall not be evicted for a period of four (04) weeks from the dated of communication of the order passed by the Respondent No.1 in the Revision. 19. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. 20. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 18.07.2025 RKS