Smt, Jonnakuti Alivelamma, v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITON No. 32844 OF 2012 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 04.02.2012 passed by the third respondent, Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowment Department, in Appeal No.105 of 2011. 2.

The case of the petitioner is that she was declared as a landless poor person by the Assistant Commissioner, fourth respondent, by proceedings dated 06.11.2003 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987. The fifth respondent, represented by the Executive Officer, appeared to have filed an appeal before the third respondent in the year 2010 seeking to condone the delay of 2402 days in filing the appeal in terms of Section 82 r/w Rule 4 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003. On receipt of the notice, petitioner engaged the services of one Advocate by name Mr.

Sesibhushan Rao and he filed his vakalat and counter before the third respondent, specifically raising the issue that there is no power to the third respondent to condone the delay. However, the third respondent vide his order dated 29.08.2011 in I.A.No.13 of 2010 without deciding the delay condonation petition proceeded to number the appeal and the same was numbered as Appeal No.105 of 2011.

3.

It is the specific case of the petitioner, as pleaded in paragraph 7 of the writ affidavit, that her Advocate Seshibhushan Rao was not served with the notice of hearing in the appeal and the impugned order dated 04.02.2012 came to be passed without there being any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4.

A perusal of the order dated 04.02.2012 reflects that the notice was served on the petitioner on 05.11.2011 and there was no representation either by the petitioner or by his counsel and hence after hearing the arguments on behalf of the fifth respondent, impugned order came to be passed. Further, the petitioner also admits in the affidavit that notice of hearing was received and she, being illiterate, was under the impression that her advocate would have been issued notice and he would be attending to the hearing. The specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his counsel was not served with the notice of hearing, which resulted in non‐appearance before the third respondent, is not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit, though on merits various contentions have been raised by the fifth respondent.

5.

Inasmuch as there is no denial that the petitioner's counsel was not given opportunity of hearing, the order suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice apart from the violation of mandatory requirement of providing opportunity of hearing in terms of the Rules.

6.

In those circumstances, the impugned order dated 04.02.2012 is set aside giving liberty to the third respondent to cause a fresh notice to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration of the submissions, which are already made by the petitioner as well as that may be made on behalf of the petitioner either by herself or through her legal representative within six months from the date of receipt of the notice.

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM November 16, 2016 LMV