Partly allowed

Sankza Satyanarayana v. Commissioner of Survey and Settlements

Telangana HC19 Jan 2016WP/9647/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court partially allowed the writ petition against a remand order by the First Respondent. The Court set aside adverse findings in the remand order that would affect fair adjudication, directing the Third Respondent to reconsider the case afresh after providing a proper opportunity to both parties.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed to the extent of setting aside adverse findings; remanded to 3rd Respondent for fresh disposal after providing fair opportunity to parties.

Sankza Satyanarayana Vs Commissioner of Survey and… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶4

W.P.No.9647 OF 1997

¶5

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶6

The question arises under A. P. (Scheduled Areas) Ryotwari Settlement Regulation II of 1970.

¶7

On 20^th March, 1980, the 3^rd respondent in the suo motu enquiry taken up under Section 9 of A .P. (Scheduled Areas) Ryotwari Settlements Regulation II of 1970, accepted the claim of 1^st petitioner and issued ryotwari patta in his favour. Respondent No.4 carried the matter in appeal before 2^nd respondent and the same is taken on File as D.Dis. 933/90 (G.I) and on 27.03.1993 the appeal was dismissed as time barred. The 4^th respondent filed further appeal before the 1^st respondent and through order dated 23.11.1996, the appeal filed by 4^th respondent was allowed and the matter remanded to 3^rd respondent for fresh disposal. The remand order is based on the following findings.

¶8

“ The point for consideration is whether the appellant has made out a case for interference with the impugned orders. The merits of the main case had to be looked into the extent they have a direct bearing on the limitation aspect. Admittedly, the name of Gajjala Lakshmaiah the fore-father of the appellant figures as pattadar in the Amararam account against the suit land. Thus when an enquiry is held U/s.9, the S.O. ought to have issued notice to him/his successors/L.Rs especially since the sale deeds are subsequent to 1/59 and Gajjala Arjuna and his four brothers had raised claims for the suit land. But it is seen from S.O/s file that no notice was issued to them. The alleged agreement of sale dt.5.11.1953 is being denied by the appellant and was not properly proved before the S.O. nor referred to in the sale deeds under which the respondent 2 is claiming the land. Thus an elaborate enquiry with adducing of evidence by both claimants and perusal of all relevant records is essential to arrive at a proper conclusion.

¶9

In these circumstances, this is a fit case for cancelling the patta granted to the Second Respondent by S.O. Bhadrachalam vide his orders dated 20.3.80 in S.R.No.18/34/77 and remanding the matter to him for fresh disposal after due notice to both sides. This is being done in the interest of natural justice because (1) no opportunity was given to the appellant by S.O. and (2) his claim for the land specifically referred to in the S.O. noting dt.20.3.80 appears not to have been disposed of as per the regulation by the S.O.”

¶10

Hence, the writ petition.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised several questions on fact and law and contended that the very premise on which the remand is ordered is unsustainable and the order of 2^nd respondent dated 27.03.1993 ought to be maintained by this Court by allowing the writ petition.

¶12

Learned Government Pleader contends that the 1^st respondent after examining the record, prima facie found that while granting ryotwari patta to petitioner proper procedure was

¶13

not followed and the principals of natural justice were violated. Petitioner challenges an order of remand and all issues including the scope and jurisdiction of enquiry on all the contested issues between the parties can be gone into by the 3^rd respondent.

¶14

We have perused the order under challenge and also the material relied upon by the petitioner in support of his contentions. As the writ petition is filed against the order of remand by 1^st respondent to the primary authority, we see a few tentative findings recorded by the 1^st respondent would likely to affect free and fair adjudication by the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, to the limited extent of setting aside the adverse findings recorded against the writ petitioner in the order dated 23.11.1996, we allow the writ petition to that limited extent, and direct the 3^rd respondent to consider the case afresh in accordance with law after affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the parties. The questions of law and fact are left open for consideration by the primary authority uninfluenced by the findings recorded in this order or by the 1^st respondent.

¶15

Writ Petition is allowed in part and remanded to 3^rd respondent for disposal as indicated above.

¶16

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

¶17

____________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ

¶18

__________________ S.V.BHATT,J Date:19.01.2016 Stp

Sankza Satyanarayana v. Commissioner of Survey and Settlements

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankza Satyanarayana v. Commissioner of Survey and Settlements

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

Y. Sambasiva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Goruputi Demudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolli Rajagopal Reddy S/o. Dasaradha Rami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its

Miss K. Sahasra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Ashiraph Ali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu), Vs Tarakrama Educational Society