SURENDER Vs. GADDA BALAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 7-10-2005 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 1200 of 2003 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh while allowing Civil Revision Petition No. 6708 of 2003 filed by the respondents, Gadda Balaiah and others. The High Court has in the process set aside the order dated 9-12-2003 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and restored that dated 28-4-2001 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer ("RDO", for short), Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the revision petitions filed before the High Court have been set out in the order passed by the High Court and those passed by the RDO and the Joint Collector, District Ranga Reddy. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to repeat the same over and over again especially because there are numerous areas in which the factual assertions made by one party are stoutly disputed by the other. The need for a full-fledged factual narration is rendered unnecessary also because the learned counsel for the parties are agreeable to the impugned order being set aside and the matter being remitted back to the High Court for a fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The fact that such an agreement emerged only after the matter had been argued at considerable length underscores the significance of the issues that need to be addressed for a proper disposal of the controversy but have not been so addressed by the High Court in the order impugned.

(3.) The learned counsel for the parties submitted that lest the matters that need to be kept in focus are neglected at the hearing before the High Court it would be proper if specific questions that arise for consideration are formulated to enable the parties to make their submission on each one of those questions and also to enable the High Court to answer the same while disposing of the matter afresh. We had, with that object in view, adjourned the matter to enable the parties to formulate the questions that according to them fall for determination by the High Court. In response several questions have been suggested to us on either side totalling about 40 questions in all. Some of these questions are substantial while some are in the nature of arguments that could be addressed before the High Court.