Remanded

Mirza Mujahid Baig v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Mar 2019WP/3983/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a revisionary order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, Jayashankar-Bhupalapally District, for failing to consider specific directions given in a previous remand order dated 23.10.2018. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with the earlier orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.02.2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Joint Collector for reconsideration in terms of the order dated 23.10.2018 in Writ Petition No.5659 of 2018 to be com

Mirza Mujahid Baig Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3983 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, Jayashankar-Bhupalapally District, in exercise of revisionary power under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 .

¶5

Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for

¶6

Sri Mirza Aijaz Ali Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel on caveat for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶7

Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel, would state that the Writ Petition is being given up against respondent Nos.8 and 9, officials of the revenue department, who were impleaded eo nomine. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as against respondent Nos.8 and 9.

¶8

The proceedings initiated by the petitioner for mutation of his

¶9

name in the revenue records in relation to the land in Survey Nos.91/1 and 91/2 of Kataram Village and Mandal, JayashankarBhupalapally District, culminated in the earlier revisonary order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the Joint Collector, JayashankarBhupalapally District. The said order was challenged by the petitioner herein before the erstwhile common High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.5659 of 2018. A learned Judge disposed of the said Writ Petition noting the

¶10

SK, J WP.No.3983 of 2019 Dt:11.3.2019

¶11

¶12

submission made on behalf of the petitioner herein that though he had produced a rectification deed in relation to the document of sale, the revisonary authority had not considered it and that the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned had entertained an appeal after six years. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein suffered an adverse decree in O.S.No.322 of 1991 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, and that the appeal filed by them was dismissed. The learned Judge specifically noted that these aspects have to be considered by the revisionary authority but he had not done so. On that ground, the revisionary order dated 04.01.2018 was set aside and the revision was remanded to the Joint Collector, JayashankarBhupalapally District, for fresh consideration within a time frame.

¶13

It is pursuant to this remand that the Joint Collector passed the present impugned order dated 13.02.2019. However, perusal thereof demonstrates that the Joint Collector completely overlooked the observations made in the order dated 23.10.2018 in Writ Petition No.5659 of 2018. Neither did he refer to the rectification deed relied upon by the petitioner nor did he advert to the civil litigation in O.S.No.322 of 1991 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Manthani.

¶14

It is not open to the Joint Collector to ignore the directions of the High Court when a matter is remanded to him with specific instructions as to what he needs to take into consideration.

¶15

SK, J WP.No.3983 of 2019 Dt:11.3.2019

¶16

¶17

On that short ground, the impugned revisionary order dated 13.02.2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Joint Collector, Jayashankar-Bhupalapally District, for reconsideration of the Revision filed by the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 23.10.2018 in Writ Petition No.5659 of 2018. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, be it from whatever source. The Joint Collector shall ensure that he abides by the directions contained in the aforestated order and discharge his quasi-judicial functions accordingly. It is open to both parties to raise any other issue also before the revisionary authority, if they so choose, and the same shall also be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

¶18

The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.

¶19

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶20

________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶21

11^th March, 2019 dr

Mirza Mujahid Baig v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mirza Mujahid Baig v. State of Telangana

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

M.v.Srihari Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Sagi Anasuya Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Challa Ramadevi Vs The State of Telangana

M.G.Amarnath, Vs The State of Telangana

Sc, St, B.C and Minorities Harijana Seva Sangam, Rep.by its Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Marri Madhusudhan Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana