Disposed

Geekuru , Jeekuru Yadagiri and another v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC23 Aug 2021WP/15402/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed Revenue Divisional Officer to verify existence of unnumbered appeal; if found, transfer all pending appeals to Special Tribunal for joint hearing and disposal within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

Revenue Divisional Officer directed to verify and transfer pending appeal to Special Tribunal for clubbed hearing within four weeks, enforceable disposal within ten weeks.

Geekuru , Jeekuru Yadagiri and another Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdistion)

¶2

N/ONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 15402 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Geekuru. @. Jeekuru Yadagiri and another, S/o. Balaiah, Age 50 years, Occupation. Agriculture and Business,

¶8

Geekuru @ Jeekuru Rajesham, S/o. Balaiah, Age 45 years, Occupation. Govt. Employee and Agriculture,

¶9

Both are Residents of Ramancha village, Chinnakodur Revenue lvlandal of Siddipet District, Presently residing at H.No.2-4-90, Gandhi Nagar, Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary for revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad

¶13

The Special Tribunal Court, Siddipet District Chaired by The District Collector Siddipet District.

¶14

a The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Siddipet District. Acted as Appellate Authority earlier under the ROR Act

¶15

Geekuru Rajesham, S/o. Late Sri Narayana, Age 51 years, Occupation. Agriculture

¶16

Geekuru Renuka, W/o. Raju, Age 38 years, Occupation. Agriculture, Both are Residents of Ramancha village, Chinnakodur Revenue Mandal of Siddipet District

¶17

,,.RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more parlicularly one in the nature of site WRIT OF N/ANDAI/US declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in not disposing the Revision Petition No. F3/'1075/2018 on the file of the Joint Collector, Siddipet now transferred to Special Tribunal New Case No. F3l Spl. Tribunal/Chinnakodurul17l2021 d|.04.02.2021 along with ROR Appeals No. 1906/2018 and another (unnumbered) ROR Appeal pending before the 3rd respondent filed by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violation of Article 1,4 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to dispose off the Revision Petition No. F3/1075/2018 on the file of the Joint Collector, Siddipet now transferred to Special Tribunal New Case No. F3/ Spl. Tribunal/ Chinnakoduru/ 1712021 dt. 04.02.2021 along with ROR Appeals No.1906/2018 and another (unnumbered) ROR Appeal pending on the file of the 3rd respondent.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petitaon under section^'l 51 cPC praylng that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the Revision Petition No. F3/1075/2018 ,rn the file of Joint collector, siddipet now transferred to special rribunal New oase No. F3/ Spl. Tribunal/chinn akodurul1712021 dt. 04.02.2021 pending disposal o'the writ petition. .

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SATYAM REDDy, REPRESENTTNG SRI.M. KIRAN REODY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: SRl. K. GOVIND

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.154O2 OP 2O21

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The pral'er sought in thc u'rit petition reads as undcr

¶29

'.. Lo issLrc au1 arpl)roprratc rvrit. orcler or direction more particularly onc in the nature of site WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action oI rhe 2"a respondent herein rn^not disposing the Revision Pctition No.F3/ 1075/2O18 on the^{filc of} the Joint Collector, Siddipet now transferred to^Special Tribunal New Case No.F3/ Spl.Tribunal/Chinnakoduru / 17 l2O2l dated 04.O2.2O21 along with ROR^Appeals No.1906/2018 and another unnumbered ROR Appeal^pending before the 3d respondent filed by the^petitioners is^i1legal, arbitra-ry unreasonable, violation of Articles¹⁴ a-nd^3OO-Aof the Constitution of India and consequently direct^the 2nd respondent herein to dispose off the Revision^Petition No.F3/ 1075/2018 on the fi1e of the Joint^Collector, Siddipet now transferred to Special Tribunal^New Case No.F3/ Spl.Tribunal/Chinnakodwru I¹⁷ 12021^dated O4.O2.2O21 along with ROR Appeals No.1906/2018^and another unnumbered ROR Appeat pending on the^h1e of^{the 3'd} respondent and pass such other order or orders as are^deemed ht and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶30

Heard Sri Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the^petitioners, learr-red Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents I to 3 and Sri K. Covind, learned counsel for respondents^{4 and5.}

¶31

Having regard to the prayer sought in the writ^petition,the Court is not recording in detail the assertions in the alfidavit liled in support of the writ petition. Sulfice to nolc that Casc No. F3 / Spl.Tribunal / Chinnakoduru/ 17 12021 is pending beforc the Special Tribunal. This is a revision preferred by the^petitioners. On reopening of the revision, the Special Tribunal issued re-open notice on 18.O6.2O2L fixing a date of hearing directing the petitioners to appear before it. Petitioners contend that there are two other appeals pending before the appeliate authority and all are concerning the same property and unless all the appeals are placed before the Special Tribunal, clubbed and heard together,

¶32

¶33

it rnay lead to voiclable litigation. Pctilioncrs -herclbrc prat. to direct thc responclent authorities to transl'cr tl.rc 1t,:r-rdir.rg arppetLls beiirrc tl-re Revenue Divisional Officcr, Siddipet Distr ct. rcsponclcnt No.3. arnd to dircct the Spccial Tribunal to takc up all the matlers togcther.

¶34

Sri K. Govind, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, fairly submits that it is always desirable to hear rr11 the matters together, but from the record and prayer, it is seen^._hat petitioners while claim to have preferred an appeal in the yertr 201g, so far that appeal is not even numbered and therefo:-e question of transferring the appeal does not arise.

¶35

Copy of appeal bearing ROR Appeal No.1906 of 2018 is filed as Ex.P4. Copy of the appeal stated to have been filed on 15.09.20 18 against the decision of the Tahsidlar, Chinnakodur, vide proceedings No.B/3961 l20).6 is filed from pa5ie Nos.22 ro 24 to the writ petition paper book. At the bottom of the first page of the appeal, there is a signature with date as 15.09.201g statecl to have been appended by concerned person of the office of the Revenue Divisional Office.

¶36

In view of the same, the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Siddipet District, is directed to veriff his record to ascertain whether any such appeal was preferred by the petitioners on 15.09.201g. If such appeal was preferred and is pending, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, shall ensure to transfer the said appeal as well as Appeal No. 1906 of 2018 to the Special Tr.bunal, Siddipet District. On receiving the records in these tu,o appt:als, the Special Tribunal shall fix a date of hearing in the trvo appeals and thc

¶37

¶38

revision, cause notice on the^{parties, lx a date of hearing,give} opportunity of hearing^{and on due considerationof the respective} parties, pass orders assigning^{reasonsin support of the decision'} The Revenue Divisional Officer^{shall transfer the record within four} weeks from the date of receipt^{of copy of this order. On verification,} rf it is found that appeal^{stated to have been filed on 15'09'2018} against the orclers of the^{Tahsildar videproceedrngs} No.B/396 1/2016 is not actually^{filed, the petitionersmay be} iniormed accordingly.^{The same factum shall also be informed} to the Special Tribunal.^{The Special Tribunal shall dispose of the} appeal/appeals transferred^{to it alongwith the pending revision} expeditiously and within a^{period of ten weeks from the date of} receipt of record.

¶39

The writ petition is^{accordingly disposedof} Pending

¶40

miscellaneous^{petitions,if any,shall standclosed.}

¶41

SD/.M.MANJULA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// il I SE roN o FICER

¶42

To,

¶43

1 ThePrincipalsecretaryforrevenueDepartment'stateofTelangana'Secretariat Building, Hyderabad

¶44

1. in" sp"""irt Tribunal^{court, SiddipetDistrictchairedby The Districtcollector} Siddipet District.

¶45

J. i6" R"r"nr" Divisional^{officer, Siddipet, SiddipetDistrict.Acted as Appellate} Authority earlier^{underthe RORAct}

¶46

4 Onu CCto Sri.^{Kiran Reddy lVlallarapu, Advocate[OPUC]} E One CC to Sri.^{K. Govind, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶47

6 Two CCs to Gp^{for Revenue, High iourtfor the State of Telangana.[oUT]} 7 Two CD Copies. 8 One Spare^CoPY.

Pru / U

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310812021

ORDER

WP.No.15402 of 2021

6L S 1'A i4,
/L
t
:)
io 03 sEPu0?l c)
.a'
a
llr 1n.11-.1

¶54

Disposing of the WP Without costs.

¶55

-
a

Geekuru , Jeekuru Yadagiri and another v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geekuru , Jeekuru Yadagiri and another v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

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

Poreddy Ram Reddy Vs State of Telangana

M /s Lkp Infra Projects Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Pandala Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Syyed Faisuddin Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Donthi Juluri Balamma Vs State of Telangana

MoluguriVenkateswarlu Vs The Special Revenue Tribunal District Collector