STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. MOHAMMAD KHASIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh the Collector, Land Records (Survey & Settlement), Hyderabad, the second respondent and other officials of the Government complaining not so much against the order of remand passed by the learned single Judge but against those portions of the Judgment which had cast serious reflections on the motive, conduct and capacity of the second respondent. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition No. 5011 of 1986 holding that the second respondent had disposed of the matter adversely to the Writ Petitioners on 18th of December, 1984 without serving a prior notice on them of the date of hearing. The prayer in the Writ Petition is merely to quash that order of the second respondent and also to direct Respondents 1 to 4 to make necessary corrections in the revenue records of the Survey and Settlement department classifying S. No. 58 (old) 127 (new) and 127 (new) and 58/13 (Jagir records) of Bahlookhnguda village Secunderabad Taluk, Hyderabad District as Patta land. It is for this purpose that they approached the second respondent who, by his order, dated 18th of December, 1984 rejected that request. The Two Writ Petitioners are claiming to be the donees of a certain extent of land which, they say, their father had purchased from one Rayees Yar Jung and gifted to them on 26th of February, 1966. A controversy seems to have arisen regarding the question whether the lands sold by Rayees Yar Jung were private lands or the Government lands. The Collector, the second respondent, had signed notices on 5-10-1984 which were despatched by registered post on 11-12-1984 informing the petitioners the date of hearing as 18-12-1984. The Writ Petitioners were not present before the Collector on 18-12-1984. The Collector had, therefore, made the impugned order which reads as follows :

(2.) To the above charges, the respondents filed a counter asserting that they had sent notices of hearing by registered post and it must be deemed under the Evidence Act to have been duly served on the Writ Petitioners. Thus the pleadings had raised only the question whether the Writ Petitioners had been served with the notices of hearing. The learned single Judge rejected the argument of the respondents that it must be presumed that the notices, dated 5-12-1984 sent by registered post were served on the Writ Petitioners. There is no dispute of the fact, that the notices were despatched by registered post on 11-12-1984. But the learned singk Judge refused to draw the inference on the ground that there was no proof of the actual service of notices on the Writ Petitioners. It is only for that reason the learned Judge had set aside the order passed by the second respondent-Collector and remanded the matter to the Collector for rehearing. In this appeal, the appellants are not making much complaint against the remand order, passed by the learned single Judge. But what the appellants are strongly objecting to are the several observations the learned single Judge had made through out his judgment casting serious reflections on the conduct, motive and competence of the second respondent. Beginning with the opening para of his judgment the learned single Judge started observing that Respondent No. 2 lacked in bona fides. In Paragraph 10 of his judgment, the learned single Judge has further observed 46 fallows :

(3.) It is against the above adverse observations and parts of the Judgment of the learned single Judge made against the second respondent this Writ Appeal is mainly directed.