Allowed

R. Kamalakar Reddy, v. The Joint Collector - I

Telangana HC18 Apr 2011WP/8935/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an order passed by the Joint Collector dismissing a revision petition, holding that the petitioner was denied one-sided decision-making without notice or opportunity of hearing under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. The matter was remanded for fresh disposal within three months under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 07.03.2009 set aside; matter remitted to the revisional authority for fresh disposal within three months.

R. Kamalakar Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector - I — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8935 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed questioning order, dated 07.03.2009, passed by the first respondent - Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, in Case No.D5/251/2008.

¶5

The dispute relates to regularization of alienation in exercise of powers under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶6

When an application filed by the petitioner was allowed by the primary authority i.e. Tahsildar, respondents 4 to 11 carried the matter in appeal before the second respondent – The Special Grade Deputy Collector-I and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy (East Division), but it ended in dismissal, as against which, respondents 4 to 11 carried the matter further by way of revision under Section 9 of the Act in Case No.D5/251/2008 before the first respondent, who in turn, allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the Tahsildar, as confirmed by the appellate authority/second respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the revision petition was disposed of by the first respondent through the impugned order without giving him opportunity of hearing and prior notice.

¶7

When the matter was taken up on an earlier occasion, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue was asked to produce the record on the next date of hearing to show that notices were served on the petitioner or not. When the matter is taken up today, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents

¶8

1 to 3 submitted that there is no proof of service of notice on the petitioner, though notices were sent to him by registered post with acknowledgment due.

¶9

At the same time, it is submitted by Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 11 that the petitioner has applied for regularization of a document, which is an agreement of sale but not a sale deed. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that under Section 5-A of the Act, the only power conferred on the Tahsildar is to regularize the sale but not the agreement of sale.

¶10

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not put on notice before order, dated 07.03.2009 passed by the first respondent in Case No.D5/251/2008. As the primary authority has passed orders in favour of the petitioner, the revisional authority ought not to have allowed the revision petition filed by respondents 4 to 11 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶11

In that view of the matter, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 11, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order on the ground that it was not preceded by any notice and opportunity to the petitioner.

¶12

Accordingly, order, dated 07.03.2009, passed by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration of the revision petition filed by the unofficial respondents, by the first respondent. Whether the order passed by the primary authority is in accordance with the provisions under Section 5- A of the Act or not is a matter to be considered by the revisional authority. As the proceedings are pending for quite a long time, I also

¶13

direct the revisional authority to dispose of the revision petition, within a period of three (3) months from today.

¶14

The writ petition is allowed with the directions referred to above. No order as to costs.

¶15

_______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18^th APRIL, 2011. kvni

R. Kamalakar Reddy, v. The Joint Collector - I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Kamalakar Reddy, v. The Joint Collector - I

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

Pentakota Venkata Rao Vs Subbineni Sudhakar

Gopathi Manikyam, Vs The Joint Collector

N.Syamala Vs The Sub Registrar

Kuna Lachaiah Vs The Additional Agent to State Government and Project Officer

G.Prakasham, Vs Bhongir Municipality

D. Venkata Narsimha Appa Rao Vs The Agent to Government , District Collector