Partly allowed

K.Nageshwar Rao v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division

Telangana HC17 Mar 2011WP/18826/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside orders by the Mandal Revenue Officer for including a third party in revenue records without notice, violating natural justice. The order directing parties to seek adjudication in civil court was upheld, and the matter remanded for a de novo enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 16.09.2006 and 08.12.2005 set aside; order dated 04.08.2008 upheld in part; matter remanded for de novo enquiry by 18.04.2011.

K.Nageshwar Rao Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

W.P. No. 18826 of 2008

¶3

DATED: 17.03.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

K. Nageshwar Rao

¶6

and three others . . Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

1. Revenue Divisional Officer

¶9

2. The Mandal Revenue Officer

¶10

3. Lakshmaiah

¶11

4. Joint Collector – I .. Respondents

¶12

O R D E R:-

¶13

The petitioners assert that their late father K. Ramachandraiah was the absolute owner and possessor of the land of an extent of Ac.33.04 guntas in S.Nos.328 and 333 situated in Elvarthi village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same from Mohd. Bhai Rahimsa & others and Pentagama. Thereafter, pattadar pass book was issued in favour of their father. While so, it is stated that the 2^nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, without giving any notice to the petitioners, issued proceedings dated 08.12.2005 incorporating the name of the 3^rd respondent in revenue records in respect of the land in question. Then, the petitioners filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, but the same was dismissed on 16.09.2006. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed a revision before the 4^th respondent-Joint Collector, who disposed of the matter by order dated 04.08.2008 holding that since a civil suit in O.S.No.26 of 2006 was pending adjudication before II Additional District Judge, R.R. District, both the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.1 to 3 were directed to get appropriate final orders from the trial Court and then approach the revenue authorities for redressal of their grievance. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that the 4^th respondent-Joint Collector, without taking into consideration the relevant material placed before him, disposed of the revision. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the order dated 04.08.2008 passed by the 4^th respondent and the proceedings dated

¶14

08.12.2005 issued by the 2^nd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the 3^rd respondent had filed an application dated 08.12.2005 stating that himself and the father of the petitioners were co-owners of the property having equal shares, and requested for incorporating his name in the revenue records pertaining to the land in question, and the Mandal Revenue Officer, vide order passed on the same day, allowed the application filed by the 3^rd respondent incorporating his name in the revenue records in respect of an extent of 50% of the share in the suit land. He has contended that as the 2^nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, incorporated the name of the 3^rd respondent in the revenue records on the same day when the application was filed, the impugned order is palpably illegal and against the principles of natural justice. He has also contended that even the order dated 16.09.2006 passed by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside on the same ground. The learned counsel has further submitted that he has no objection to the orders passed by the 4^th respondent dated 04.08.2008 so far as it relates to the directions given to both the parties to get the matter decided in civil court.

¶15

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent has contended that since it is clearly mentioned in the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings that the suit property is the joint property of the father of the petitioners and the

¶16

3^rd respondent, there was no necessity to put the petitioners on notice before the proceedings dated 08.12.2005 were issued, however the notices were circulated and announced in the village. Hence, the impugned orders are perfectly legal and valid and do not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, it is obvious that the order passed by the 2^nd respondent incorporating the name of the 3^rd

¶18

respondent in the revenue records on the same day when the application seeking such incorporation was filed by the 3^rd respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioners nor affording them any opportunity of being heard, suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice. It was the bounden duty of the 2^nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to issue notice to the affected parties before allowing the application filed by the 3^rd respondent with regard to the incorporation of his name in the revenue records.

¶19

Resultantly, the orders dated 16.09.2006 and 08.12.2005 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively are set aside. However, the order, dated 04.08.2008 passed by the 4^th respondent to the extent that the parties were directed to get their claims adjudicated through a civil Court, is upheld.

¶20

Hence, the matter is remanded back to the 2^nd respondentMandal Revenue Officer to consider the application filed by the 3^rd respondent afresh after hearing the objections that may be raised by the petitioners if any and after conducting denova enquiry, and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed on or before 18.04.2011. Till such time, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today.

¶21

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶22

_____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J 17.03.2011

¶23

bcj

K.Nageshwar Rao v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Nageshwar Rao v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Ghayasuddin Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Swarna Susilamma Prakasam Dist. Vs the Dist. Collector Prakasam Dist. and 4 Othrs

Mr. G. Yadaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Jyothi Reddy Vs The Joint Collector

A.Chencu Reddy Vs The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District A.P.

Mohd. Irfan, Vs The Joint Collector