Dismissed

Ch.Venkata Ranga Reddy v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC3 Dec 2010WP/30323/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for impleadment in a revenue revision. The Court held that an interested party must initiate substantive proceedings rather than intervene in a revision regarding mutation orders, noting that the CPC largely does not apply to revenue proceedings absent specific statutory rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition for mandamus to set aside endorsement rejecting impleadment application dismissed and connected IMP disposed of as infructuous.

Ch.Venkata Ranga Reddy Vs The Joint Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.30323 of 2010

¶3

Date : 3-12-2010

¶4

Between : Ch.Venkata Ranga Reddy .. Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy and others .. Respondents

¶5

Counsel for petitioner : Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 :

¶6

The court made the following :

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside endorsement No.F3/4631/10-F3/34/ROR/09, dated 6-11-2010 of respondent No.1 whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner for his impleadment in a revision filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 and pending before the former.

¶9

For disposal of this Writ Petition, the facts in detail need not be referred to. It will suffice to note that against the order of respondent No.3 mutating the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5, respondent No.6 filed an appeal before respondent No.2 who allowed the same and set-aside the order of respondent No.3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of respondent No.2, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed a revision before respondent No.1. In that revision, the petitioner filed an application for his impleadment as he is interested in the subject matter of the revision. By the impugned endorsement, respondent No.1 has rejected the said application by stating that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings before respondent No.2.

¶10

Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that as his client is interested in the property which is the subject matter of the revision, he is a proper party to the revision petition.

¶11

Having carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit therein because if the petitioner claims right over the property in question he can always assert his right by initiating substantive proceedings in a proper court or any other forum. The subject matter of the revision before respondent No.1 pertains only to the validity or otherwise of the order of respondent No.3 mutating the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5. In such a proceeding, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Being not a party either before respondent No.3 or

¶12

respondent No.2, the petitioner cannot claim to come on record for the first time in a revision petition filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Moreover, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, except to the limited extent of summoning and enforcing attendance of the persons, requiring the discovery and production of documents and any other matter which may be prescribed, as envisaged under Section 10 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971, have no application to the proceedings before the revenue authorities. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that any provision has been made by way of a statutory rule providing for impleadment of third parties either in appeals or revisions. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition.

¶13

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.38634/2010 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J

¶16

Date: 3-12-2010 AM

Ch.Venkata Ranga Reddy v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Venkata Ranga Reddy v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Aseervadam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Upesh Singh Vs The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally

M/s. Stanley Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch. Shankaraiah Vs The Collector (Cs)

Dr.M.Sharath Chandra Reddy Vs The Inspector General Stamps and Registration

Yenke Chandra Sekhar Vs The District Collector