Case Law Details
Polu Venkata Lakshmamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Once there is a failure of rules of natural justice, even if there is an alternative remedy, a writ is maintainable. The law is well settled. Hence, the impugned order, dated 22.12.2020 as communicated by the endorsement dated 14.12.2021 is hereby set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to conduct a de novo enquiry into the application filed by the petitioners, strictly in compliance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act and Rules there under. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say after complying with the procedure, an order can be passed on merits of the matter without being influenced by the fact that an order is passed by the High Court. A reasoned order should thereafter be passed and necessarily communicated to the petitioners.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application for mutation of names of a land, which is said to have been purchased by the petitioners, has been rejected without following the mandatory procedure under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). In particular, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the Section 5(3) of the Act and argues that before any order is passed, the petitioner should have been put on notice, their contentions should have been heard and thereafter only the impugned order should be passed. Apart from that he also points out that the order, dated 20.12.2020 is never communicated to them till 14.12.2021. Some other legal and factual issues are also raised.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
