Allowed

Shaik Hussain, v. The Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer

Telangana HC3 Oct 2018WP/8240/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court held that the appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation lacks the _suo motu_ power to initiate appeal proceedings under Section 3(3)(a). The court declared the first respondent's action in entertaining an appeal without an application as without jurisdiction, aligning with a prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

The action of the first respondent in entertaining the appeal _suo motu_ was declared as without jurisdiction.

Shaik Hussain, Vs The Additional Agent to the Government… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8240 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in taking up the appeal in C.M.A.No.252 of 2005 by exercising suo motu appellate powers and issuing notice dated 29.02.2008 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas

¶5

Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, Regulation 1 of 1959) as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 against the order of the second respondent dated 28.06.2001 in LTR Case No.167/2001/PNB in respect of the lands of the petitioner admeasuring an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas in Survey No.254/5 situated in Lingagudem Village of Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶6

The petitioner’s case is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas in Survey No.254/5 situated in Lingagudem Village of Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District, which is situated within the scheduled area. The subject property originally belonged to Sri Pasupuleti Naidu, who is a non-tribe and the petitioner is also a non-tribe. The petitioner acquired the said property in his name through simple sale deed dated 12.06.1966 and ever since he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. There was no involvement of Government interest or the interest of tribals in respect of the said property. Further, since he acquired the property prior to Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of

¶7

¶8

1970, the provisions of the said Regulation have no application. The further case of the petitioner is that the second respondent initiated the suo motu action against the petitioner under Section 3(2)(a) of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 in LTR Case No.167/2001/PNB and having found that the present petitioner purchased the land under simple sale deed dated 12.06.1966 and enjoying the same, which is evident from land revenue receipts and pahanies and also finding that parties to the sale transactions were nontribals and no tribal interest was involved therein, held that the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 have no application and, accordingly, dropped the proceedings. The further case of the petitioner is that, however, the first respondent initiated suo motu appeal proceedings in C.M.A.No.252 of 2005 dated 29.02.2008, and issued notice to the petitioner to appear before him on 15.03.2008.

¶9

Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶10

The respondents filed counter affidavit and opposed the Writ Petition.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶12

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 3(2)(a) of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, suo motu power is conferred only on the primary/original authority to pass the decree of ejectment at the initial stage but no such

¶13

¶14

suo motu power is conferred on the officers to take up the appeal proceedings without there being an appeal filed by the aggrieved party. Therefore, the first respondent under law has no jurisdiction to take up the appeal suo motu against the order in LTR Case No.167/2001/PNB, which already attained finality. To buttress his contention that the appellate authority has no power to initiate suo motu appeal, learned counsel relied upon the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.7063 of 2008, dated 05.09.2018. He thus prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

¶15

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare would argue that the land is situated in agency tract and the petitioner obtained the said land through simple sale deed and therefore, they do not confer any valid and legal title on them and this aspect was not properly appreciated by the second respondent. Therefore, the appeal was taken up suo motu by the first respondent and the same is maintainable.

¶16

In the light of the above respective contentions, a perusal of the order in Writ Petition No.7063 of 2008 dated 05.09.2018, shows that in the said Writ Petition also the same question was involved to the effect that, whether the first respondent – Additional Agent to the Government & Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, has suo motu power to take up the appeal as per Section 3(2)(a) of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. This Court having perused the relevant case law and the provisions of Sections 3(2)(a) and 3(3)(a) of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, has

¶17

¶18

ultimately held that the crucial word “ suo motu ” that appeared in Section 3(2)(a) is conspicuously absent in Section 3(3)(a) indicating that the legislature in its wisdom has not accoutred the appellate authority with the suo motu appeal power under Section 3(3)(a). The said Writ Petition was disposed of declaring that the first respondent had no suo motu appeal power. Needless to emphasize that the order in Writ Petition No.7063 of 2008 applies in all its fours to the case on hand.

¶19

Following the aforesaid covered judgment, this Writ Petition can be ordered.

¶20

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of declaring the action of the first respondent in entertaining the appeal suo motu as without jurisdiction. However, it will not preclude the primary/original authority to initiate proceedings against the petitioner on a complaint or suo motu under Section 3(2)(a) of the Regulations, on discovery of new fact or evidence, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No costs.

¶21

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶23

Date: 03.10.2018 scs

Shaik Hussain, v. The Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Hussain, v. The Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reshma Khan Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Mahavir Pharmacy Vs The Union of India

Puvvala Kotaiah Vs The Government of India, Ministryof Home Affairs

Secy., St. Josephs Public School Hyd. Vs Union of India, Min. of Health and 2 Ors.

Shastry High School, Sec Vs Secy, Labour and Employment Dept, Hyd and Another

Sri Ramakrishna School, Vis. Vs the Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad and Another