DASARI SURYACHANDER RAO Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dasari Suryachander Rao and others filed the present writ petition to call for the records relating to Case No. 13/687/87 on the file of 3rd respondent confirming the orders of 2nd respondent made in A.P.No.369/77 and 4th respondent made in Case No.2858 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of the 3rd respondent made in Case No. 13/687/87 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent made in A.P. No.369/77 and the 4th respondent made in Case No.2858 and to pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) Sri Srinivas Rao, representing Lakshmana Sarma, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners made the following submissions. The learned Counsel at the outset had drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in Kakarala Nageswara Rao v. Government of A.P. and others, 1995 (3) ALD 222 = 1995 (3) ALT 164 and had explained that in the light of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision the very order of the Primary Authority is not sustainable who had exercised the suo motu powers. The learned Counsel also maintained that there is total non-application of mind by the Primary Authority inasmuch as though Document No.499 had been referred to, a wrong date relating to the sale deed had been specified and the recitals in the sale deed and the other relevant aspects had not been taken into consideration at all and a quasi-judicial authority who is bound to record intelligible reasons on appreciation of the material had not exercised the powers in accordance with law and inasmuch as the order of the Primary Authority itself is devoid of any reasons, the same cannot be improved by the higher authorities in the hierarchy. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the other orders made by the higher authorities in the hierarchy inclusive of the impugned order and would maintain that in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances it is clear that reasonable opportunity had not been given to Dasari Suranna, the original petitioner, who is no doubt no more and hence the legal representatives of Dasari Suranna who are now prosecuting the present litigation are to be afforded with reasonable opportunity and hence the orders which had been questioned in the present writ petition are liable to be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare had drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the interim order already had been vacated in W.V.M.P.No.1176/2001. The learned Counsel also maintained that inasmuch as the transaction is subsequent to Regulation 1 of 1970, as a question of fact, the authorities had recorded that the said transaction is null and void and hence the said finding need not be disturbed by the writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.