Partly allowed

Vattepu Mallikarjun, v. Narayana Reddy

Telangana HC4 Jul 2013WA/1131/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This joint judgment addresses a writ petition challenging a Collector's order deleting petitioners' names from revenue records and an appeal by a successful auction bidder. The Court holds that deleting long-standing names without notice violates principles of natural justice, allowing the writ petition but setting aside the impugned order. The Court remands the matter to the Joint Collector for e

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned Collector's order was set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Joint Collector for considera

Vattepu Mallikarjun, Vs Narayana Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

(DATED 04-07-2013)

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

WA No.1131 OF 2012

¶9

Between: Vattepu Mallikarjun

¶10

.Appellant And Narayana Reddy and others ... Respondents WP No.13479 of 2012 Narayana Reddy and others … Petitioners And The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District and Others …. Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶12

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶14

WA No.1131 OF 2012 & WP No.13479 of 2012 COMMON JUDGMENT : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana )

¶15

Writ appeal and writ petition are taken up for hearing by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 27-07-2012 passed in WVMP No.1774 of 2012 in WP No.13479 of 2012 filed by the appellant-respondent no.7 in the writ petition whereby the interim order dated 10-5-2012 was modified. The appellant has participated in the auction of lease hold rights relating to the agricultural land of 9^th respondent-Temple in the auction held on 2-5-2010 and emerged as the highest bidder. On 10-102012, this Court while granting time to the learned Government Pleader for filing counter, directed the parties to maintain status-

¶16

quo with regard to possession of the property. In this appeal there is serious contest between the writ petitioner on one hand and the appellant as well as the Temple authorities and the revenue authorities on the other hand. While hearing the writ appeal, we felt that the writ petition itself can be disposed and the learned counsel for the parties have also consented to the said course and accordingly the writ petition was called for, listed and has been heard.

¶17

2. In WP No.13479 of 2012, the order passed by the Collector-4^th respondent in File No.F2/289/2012, dated 15-022012 is challenged. By the said order the Collector directed deletion of names of the writ petitioners from the revenue records with reference to Sy.No.341, extent Ac.09-28 guntas situated in Gattutummen Village of Balmoor Mandal and in that place insert the name of the Sri Rameshwara Swamy Temple, Gattutummen and correct the revenue records accordingly. Writ petitioners claim that their father was in possession continuously of the said land as per the Khasra Pahani for the

¶18

years 1954-55 and their names are found in the cultivator column. They claim that after the death of their father, they are in possession of the land. The petitioners, however, state that the claim of the Temple authorities that the Temple has been granted ORC and further action of the Temple in putting the said land for lease by public auction etc. was all without their notice and without reference to the petitioners and being unaware of the same, apprehend that their possession will be affected by the impugned order of the Collector-4^th respondent, filed the present writ petition.

¶19

3. On 10-5-2012 when the writ petition was heard, while ordering notice before admission, this Court directed statusquo subsisting as on that date be maintained by the parties. At the instance of the successful bidder in the public auction (appellant in the writ appeal), the said order of status-quo was modified by the impugned order dated 27-07-2012 in vacate petition.

¶20

4. The order passed by the Collector, Mahabubnagar District, dated 15-02-2012 records that as per the ROR, the names of the petitioners were found recorded as pattedars over the said land from 1985-86 pahani onwards and their names were incorporated by deleting the Lord Rameshwara Swamy name and that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Mahabubnagar, having recorded that the said property belongs to Sri Rameshwara Swamy Temple, having “Kidmati Inam” directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool, to correct their revenue records accordingly.

¶21

5. The main contention raised by the writ petitioners is that the said impugned order is passed without notice and without enquiry and is ex-facie violative of principles of natural justice. Specific grounds in support of the plea are raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4^th respondent-Collector has filed a counter, but however, the said averments of the writ petitioners are not controverted. The impugned order of the

¶22

Collector also does not indicate issuance of any notice to the writ petitioners and that they were heard before passing the said order. It cannot be denied that the names of the petitioners appearing in the revenue records for several years have been directed to be deleted by the impugned order of the Collector and thereby writ petitioners are justified in complaining that the said order adversely affects their civil rights. Adherence of principles of natural justice is mandatory before passing of the said order of the Collector. Learned counsel for the 9^th respondent-Temple tries to justify the impugned order by contending that the Khasra Pahani produced by the writ petitioners show that inamdar as Deity and as such erroneous revenue record entries were directed to be corrected by inserting the name of the Deity. Learned counsel appearing for the Temple further submits that principles of natural justice cannot be called in question in the present case, as the order impugned merely corrects the subsequent entries in conformity with the Khasra Pahani.

¶23

6. We are unable to appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the 9^th respondent-Temple as substantial property rights of the writ petitioners were affected. In the light of revenue entries showing their names for more than a decade, their names could not have been deleted without notice to them. In our view the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside on that short ground alone. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, this will not preclude the 4^th respondent-Collector from re-considering the matter afresh after issuing notice to the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

¶24

7. Learned counsel stated at the bar that subsequent to the impugned order of the Collector, the RDO has granted occupancy certificate in favour of the 9^th respondent-Temple. It is also stated that the writ petitioners have already filed appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, against the grant of ORC in favour of the 9^th respondent-Temple and the same is

¶25

pending. Since we have set aside the impugned order of the Collector dated 15-02-2012, we deem it appropriate to permit the parties to place a copy of this order before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, and request the Joint Collector to take up the appeal filed by the writ petitioners and decide the appeal expeditiously preferable within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶26

8. Since writ appeal is at the instance of the appellant who was granted one year lease in the public auction and the said lease having come to an end, nothing survives for consideration in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

9. Since the order passed by this Court dated 10-10-2012 is operating pending appeal, all the parties shall maintain statusquo with regard to possession of the property pending final disposal of the Inman appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, and the possession of the respective parties

¶28

shall abide by the result of the said appeal. Miscellaneous petitions pending in these matters shall stand closed

¶29

accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

______________________ N.V.RAMANA,J

¶31

______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 04-07-2013 Note: Office to return the Original records to the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (TA). (b/o) NRG

¶32

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶33

¶34

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶35

WA No.1131 OF 2012

¶36

04-07-2013

¶37

NRG

Vattepu Mallikarjun, v. Narayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vattepu Mallikarjun, v. Narayana Reddy

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

Smt .P. Vimala Devi, Vs The General Manager

A.Nageshwara Rao, Vs The Branch Manager, Uco Bank, Guntur Branch, 9/1

Movva Ramakrishna Vs The Commissioner and Inspector General of

The Govt.of a.P., Vs Kalluri Ajay Kumar Ghosh

P. Mohmmed Rafi Vs The chairman

Narayana Reddy Vs The District Collector