Partly allowed

M/s. Devi Real Estates Company, v. Smt.Lakkasani Mithila

Telangana HC4 Mar 2016WP/19146/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an arbitrary order by the 11th respondent which set aside earlier orders despite holding the revision was not maintainable under the relevant Act. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by quashing the last paragraph of the impugned order. The matter was remitted to the 11th respondent to decide afresh after a reasonable opportunity to the parties.

M/s. Devi Real Estates Company, Vs Smt.Lakkasani Mithila — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.19146 of 2005

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings in Case No.D5/P5/17/2005, dated 06.08.2005 passed by the 11^th respondent, declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction and is violative of principles of natural justice.

¶4

02. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased Ac.4.01 gts. of agricultural land in Sy.No.179 (part) situated at Bachupally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed dated 24.07.2004 bearing document No.8036 of 2004 from the 10^th respondent. Since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter, he made an application for mutation, before the 9^th respondent, and the said mutation was ordered by the 9^th respondent by issuing proceedings No.A/895/2004 dated 12.07.2004 and proceeding No.A/8691/2004 dated 28.09.2004.

¶5

03. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 9^th respondent, Respondents 1 to 7 filed an appeal before the 8^th respondent in Appeal No.A2/3749/2004 and A/3751/2004. After hearing both parties, the 8^th respondent dismissed the above appeals vide order dated 08.04.2005.

¶6

04. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 8^th respondent, respondents 1 to 7 preferred revision before the 11^th respondent vide case No.D5/P5/17/2005. The 11^th respondent, while holding that the revision is not maintainable, set aside the order passed by the 9^th respondent.

¶7

05. Therefore, it is contended that the order is against the law and when once the 11^th respondent concluded that the revision is not maintainable he could not have set aside the order of the 9^th respondent dated 12.07.2004 and 28.09.2004 passed in exercise of power under Section 5(2) of AP Rights In Land And Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

¶8

06. The respondents did not file counter.

¶9

07. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner almost reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition. Whereas Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7, contended that the matter was heard in the presence of Sri

¶10

S. Nagesh Reddy, counsel for the 4^th respondent, who is the petitioner herein, and supported the order.

¶11

08. In the last paragraph of the order under challenge, the 11^th respondent held that the revision is not maintainable, and set aside the orders of Mandal Revenue officer dated 12.07.2004 and 28.09.2004. When 11^th respondent held that the revision is not maintainable under Section 9 of AP Rights In Land And Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, ought not to have set aside the order dated 12.07.2004 and 28.09.2004. If the 11^th respondent finds that the revision is maintainable then he is entitled to pass such an order, therefore, the last paragraph of the order and the first part of observation is contrary to one another, as such, self contradictory order cannot be sustained, as the order is without jurisdiction.

¶12

09. In those circumstances, the matter is remitted to the 11^th respondent to decide the matter afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to both the parties.

¶13

10. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed. No

¶14

costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall

¶15

stand closed.

¶16

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

¶17

Date: 04.03.2016 BV

M/s. Devi Real Estates Company, v. Smt.Lakkasani Mithila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Devi Real Estates Company, v. Smt.Lakkasani Mithila

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

Bro. Y.John Subba Reddy, Vs The Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India

A. Ramulu Goud, Vs The Commissioner of Appeals

Dama Ramanaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Fateema Zehra Vs B. Manjula

Pravinder Raj Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mrs. Allu Ammaji, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer