Disposed

Peddi Narsaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Apr 2021WP/10705/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging a Special Tribunal order for lack of notice and hearing. The Bench directed the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal within ten days to request a personal hearing as per prior directions. Fresh orders are to be passed after complying with procedure.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed liberty to appear before Special Tribunal within ten days to request personal hearing; stay on Tahasildar action pending fresh orders.

Peddi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY^{SIXTHDAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{P. NAVEENRAO}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:¹⁰ 705 0F²⁰²¹

¶6

Between:

¶7

Peddi Narsaiah, S/o'Mallaiah,^A ge 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,^{Rl/o'Vangamarthi Village,} Sahigouram Mandal, Nalgodna District - 508210

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

l.TheStateofTelangana'Rep.byitsPrl.Secretary,RevenueDepartment'

¶11

Secretariat, HYderabad.

¶12

ih; Dl;iti,i C6llector^{(Revenue), Nalgonda, Nalgonda District'}

¶13

The Revenue^{Divisional Officer,Nalgonda' lelangana,}

¶14

+. Tfre Tahasildar, Shaligouraram^{Mandal,Nalgonda}

¶15

S. Siilrr,l.i[Ji:ru^{pinruiir,i5To. Veeramattu, AgeI about 65years,Rl/o. Vangamarthi,} Shalioouraram tr/andal,^{Nalgonda District'}

¶16

1. 5;i. bfill^{(*nuiii Mrrf,i,S"/o Veeramallu, Aged about 40 vears' R/o'}

¶17

Vinqimartni, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda.District'

¶18

z iii'iJoil kiilnnair-r,,^{sTol vaiiiiar,,Asedabout40 years,Fi"/o.Mothkur V and} M. Yadadri-Bhonagairi^District.

¶19

...RES'ONDENTS

¶20

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue a writ order or^{directionmoreparticularly one in the natureof wRlT oF} CERlCloRoRYcallingfortherecordsrelatingtotheordersofoldCaseNo.F2l 471B]2O1B^{(Old RevenuecourtAdditional collector, Nalgonda), New Case No F2l} Spl.Tribunal/o1 9712021,^{Dated281011202'1. passed by the 2nd Respondentand} quash the same.

¶21

IA NO:^'l OF²⁰²¹

¶22

Petition under section^{151 cPCprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto suspend the} orders of old case^{No.F2t4718t2018(old Revenue court: Additional collector'} Nalgonda), New^{case No.F2lSpl.Tribunallo197l2o21,Dated 28-01-2021, passedby} the 2nd Respondent,^{in pendingdisposal of the Writ Petition'}

¶23

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl. RAPOLUBHASKAR}

¶24

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos'1to 4: AGP FORREVENUE}

¶25

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.5to 7: NONEAPPEARED}

¶26

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.1O7O5 of 2O2L

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶31

This writ petition is filed challenging the decision of the Special Tribunal constituted under Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2O2O (Act 9 of 2020) in Old Case No.F2l471812O\B (New Case No.F2lSpl.Tribunal/ 0197 l2O2l, dated 28.01.2021) disposing the revision filed under Act 26 of 1971. The primary challenge against the order of the Special Tribunal is that before passing orders, notice was not issued and opportunity of hearing was not afforded.

¶32

The very issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No.20 of 2021. Takitgnote of the objections of not issuing notice and not affording opportunity of hearing by order dated 18.03.2021, the Division Bench issued foilowing directions:

¶33

"4. It is therefore deemed appropriate to direct that in all cases tlat have been transferred from the revenue courts to the Special Tribunals notwithstanding any orders that may have been passed by the Special Tribunals, the respondents sha.ll issue pubiic notices calling upon parties to appear before the Specia.l Tribunals in each district on a fixed date arrd time to enable them to ma-ke their submissions. Wherever a request for a personal hearing is received from parties, t}te orders passed by the Special Tribunals shall be deemed to be quashed arrd set aside. Fresh orders sha-ll be passed by the Special Tribunals after granting a reasonable opportunity to the parties of being heard either in person or through their Advocates. They sha-ll also be afforded a

¶34

¶35

chance to^{file writtensubmissions'if not alreadyfiled' Only} thereafter^{shall fresh orders be passed by the Special} Tribunals.^{Adequate and widespreadpublicity of this order} shall be^{given by the State withinthreeweeksto apprise all} concerned Parties^{of the same "}

¶36

In terms^{of the saidorder, the aggrievedperson has to verify} 4, the^{publication of notice as directedby the Hon'ble DivisionBench} and appear^{beforethe Special Tribunalon the date and time fixed} in the notice.^{However, having regardto submissionsmade at the} bar, in addition,^{petitioner is grantedliberty to appearbefore the} Special Tribunal^{withinten days from the date of receipt of copyof} thisorderandsubmitarequestforapersonalhearing.Heshall obtain acknowledgement^{of submittingsuch request'He shailalso} furnishtheaddressforcorrespondence,mobilenumberand e-mail address^{(if any) in the said requisition'The SpecialTribunal} shall maintain^{record of proceedingsincluding request madefor} personal hearing,^{as noted above' On furnishing the information} by the^{petitionerand request madefor personal hearing' the} Special Tribunal^{shall conductproceedingsas directed by the} Hon'ble Division^{Bench of this Court' It shall considerthe matter} afresh uninfluenced^{by the earlierorder' It is open to the parties} to file \Mritten^{submissionsbeforethe date of hearing fixed by the} Special Tribunal.^{Learnedcounsel expressed concern that the} Tahsildar^{may undertake exercise consequentto the impugned} decision of^{Special Tribunal' It is hoped and expected that no} steps be taken^{by the Tahsildarbasedon the orders of the Special} Tribunal,^{impugnedherein, till fresh ordersare passedby the} Special Tribunal^{as directedby the Division Bench and in this writ} petition. It is^{made clear that this order is operativeoniy if}

¶37

¶38

-3

¶39

petitioner complies with directions^{issued above. There is no} expression of opinion^{on merits and the submissionsand pleas of} the parties are preserved.

¶40

The ra,rit petition is disposed^of. No costs. Miscellaneous

¶41

petitions, if any, pending, stand closed'

SD/. K.ONESIM

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

Ci,

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department, State of Telangana, secretariat,} Hvderabad.

¶49

Tlie District Collector^{(Revenue), Nalgonda, Nalgonda District'}

¶50

The Revenue Divisional^{Officer, Nalgonda, Telangana,}

¶51

The Tahasildar, Shaligouraram^{Mandal' Nalgonda}

¶52

One CC to Sri Rapolu^{Bhaskar, Advocate} TOPUCJ

¶53

Two CCs to GP fdr^{Revenue,HighCourt for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶54

Two CD Copies

CHR

HIGH^COURT

DATED:2610412021

ORDER

W.P.No.10705^{of 2021}

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶62

'&v 6

Peddi Narsaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peddi Narsaiah v. The State of Telangana

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

Akula Muralidhar Rao Vs P.Pramod Kumar

Smt. Urmila Sahu Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Urmila Sahu and another Vs State of Telangana and 7 others

B.Madhavi Vs The State of Telangana

Peddagouni Dhananjaya Goud Vs The State of Telangana

V.Narsimha Vs The State of Telangana