Allowed

Shabbir Ali Khan v. Joint Collector (J)

Telangana HC14 Aug 2012WA/985/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of writ appeals challenging interim orders passed by a Single Judge in a mutation dispute. The Court maintained the status quo but modified the order to direct the Joint Collector to hear the pending revision petition on the fixed date after affording parties an opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals allowed to the extent indicated; the status quo order modified to direct the Joint Collector to hear the revision on 25.8.2012 after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Shabbir Ali Khan Vs Joint Collector (J) — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR

¶4

WRIT APPEAL NOs.985 AND 990 OF 2012 & WRIT PETITION NO.18933 OF 2012

¶5

DATED:14.8.2012

¶6

Between: Shabbir Ali Khan … Appellant And Joint Collector (J) Ranga Reddy District and others … Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NOs.985 AND 990 OF 2012; AND WRIT PETITION NO.18933 OF 2012

¶10

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶11

(per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶12

These writ appeals are directed against the order dt.3.8.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.M.P. Nos.24269 and 24270 of 2012 in W.P. No.18933 of 2012.

¶13

The writ petition was filed by the appellant – writ petitioner challenging the order dt.11.6.2012 passed by respondent No.1 – Joint Collector, in Case No.D5/1345/2012, operative portion of which reads

¶14

as under:

¶15

“The operation of the mutation orders passed by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Serilingampally, vide Case No.B/187/2008, dated 12.6.2008 is hereby stayed. Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo till further orders.

¶16

The case is posted on 16.6.2012 at 11.00 A.M. before the undersigned at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.”

¶17

In the miscellaneous applications filed in the writ petition, the Hon’ble Single Judge passed the impugned order dt.3.8.2012, the operative portion of which reads as under:

¶18

“Hence, there shall be interim direction to the effect that,

¶19

a) the 1^st respondent shall not proceed with the hearing of the revision filed before him by the 3^rd respondent, until further orders;

¶20

b) respondents 1 and 2 shall take immediate steps to ensure that no activity whatever takes place over the land covered by the proceedings. If necessary, they shall take the help of police, and arrange for deployment of adequate force.”

¶21

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant – writ petitioner.

¶22

It is the case of the appellant - writ petitioner that the Hon’ble Single Judge passed the interim direction directing respondent No.1 not to proceed with the hearing of the revision filed before him by respondent No.3, until further orders. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the revision petition may be heard out by respondent No.1 after giving a chance of being heard to the appellant and also to place all the facts and material before the said authority.

¶23

A counter affidavit is also filed by respondent No.3, who appeared before us in person through the Secretary of the Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Cooperative Housing Society, and it is pointed out before us that if a decision is given at this stage suspending the order dt.11.6.2012 passed by respondent No.1, there is a chance of breach of peace in the area.

¶24

From the order dt.11.6.2012 passed by respondent No.1 – Joint Collector, it is seen that the said authority has stayed the operation of the mutation orders passed by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Serilingampally, dt.12.6.2008, and further directed to maintain status quo till further orders. It appears that since there is a likelihood of breach of peace in the locality in the matter in question, respondent No.1 appears to have thought it fit to pass an order of status quo.

¶25

We have also been informed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the revision petition is pending and is fixed for hearing on 25.8.2012 before respondent No.1.

¶26

In the circumstances, we do not intend to interfere with the status quo order dt.11.6.2012 passed in the matter in question by respondent No.1 and the said status quo which is operating since 11.6.2012 shall be maintained till a decision is taken by respondent No.1 in the revision petition filed by respondent No.3. We direct

¶27

respondent No.1 - the Joint Collector to give an opportunity of hearing to the parties before us on 25.8.2012, and shall pass a reasoned order in the said revision, at the earliest.

¶28

The impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge stands modified accordingly.

¶29

The writ appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated

¶30

above.

¶31

The writ petition also stands disposed of on the above terms.

¶32

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶33

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 14.8.2012

¶34

bnr

Shabbir Ali Khan v. Joint Collector (J)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabbir Ali Khan v. Joint Collector (J)

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

Suneel Kumar Appaji Vs The Union of India., rep.by the Secretary to the

Raghunandan Yadav Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government

Sri Radha Kanth Mutt, Balasahi, Vs Smt. Chitra Ramachandran

Paladugula Kumaraswamy Vs G. Venugopal Rao

Union of India, Vs Yelmareddy Suryamma

M.Eswara Reddy Vs v.Mallikarjuna