Disposed

Shanker Venkatesh v. The State of Tenlangana and 10 others

Telangana HC10 Aug 2021WP/17831/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order of the Special Tribunal regarding land mutation. The Court clarified that pending civil litigation does not bar the right to apply for mutation if the petitioner succeeds in causing a decree, without being inclined to set aside the impugned order due to lack of notice.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of without costs; the entry into revenue records is limited to the dispute subject matter only if the petitioner succeeds in civil litigation.

Shanker Venkatesh Vs The State of Tenlangana and 10 others — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD ' (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST IWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 17831 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shanker Venkatesh, S/o Hanumanthu, aged about 46 years, Occ- Driver in TSRTC, R/o H.No.2-58, Pasmamla Village, Hayathnagar li/andal, Ranga Reddy District

¶8

...PETrrroNER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

2 The Special Tribunal, Under Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book, Rep. by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

4 The Additional Collector (Revenue), Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Irbahimpatnam Division, at Turkayamjal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

6 The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet l,4andal, Ranga Reddy District

¶16

7 Smt. Shanker Balamani, W/o Late S. Anjaiah, Aged about 60 years, OccHousehold, R/ o H.no,2-49, Pasmamla Village, Abdullapurmet lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

8 Sri Shanker Ramesh, S/o Late S.Anjaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ- Pvt. Employee, R/o H.no.249, Pasinamla Village, Abdullapurmet lt4andal, Ranga. Reddy District

¶18

9 Sri Shanker Srinivas, s/o Late S.Anjaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ- Pvt. Employee, R/o H.no.2-49, Pasmamla Village, Abdullapurmet I,4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

Shanker lt4allesh, Sio Late S.Anjaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ- Pvt. Employee, R/o H.no.2-49, Pasmamla Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

Boggula Ramakrishna Reddy, Sio Late B. It4ohan Reddy, Aged about 48^years, Occ- Business, Flo H.No. 4-7-234, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in tl'ie affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of writ or Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order Dt-810212O21^{passed in} No.A2187412019 (old) ST/D5/86912021 (new)by the 2nd respondent and^quash the same by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary contrary to the settled^principles of law, violative of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act 2020 violative of principles of natural^justice and violative of Art.^'14 and 300-4 of the constitution of lnd ia.

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto suspend the order dated Dt:B-02-2021 tn No.A2lB7412019^(old) ST/D5l86Sl²⁰²¹ (new)passed by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T. SURYA SATISH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 11:------

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.17831 of 2O21

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This u'rit petition is filecl seeking the follou,ing prayer :

¶32

".. lo issue a writ, order or direction more particulari) one in the nature of \'rit or Certiorari calling for the records pert:rining to the order Dt.8-02-2021 passed in No. A2la74l2( 19 (old) S'l I D5 I 869 l2O'21 {ne\') b}' the 2',d respon(lent and <1rash thc same tr! dec:larirrg the same as illegal, arbitrarl', contran to tl.re settled principlcs of larv violative ofTelangana Rights in .and and Pattadar Pass Book Acl 2020 violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art,14 and 300-A of the const tution of Inclia ar.rd to pass sLlch other orcler..."

¶33

). Fleard Sn T.Surva Satish, lcarned counscl for the petitioner and lcrlrned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue appearing lor respondents 1 to 6.

¶34

Though learned counsel for the petitioner soullht to contend that the order of Speciai Tribunal is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that it was passed without affording^,:pportunity of hearing, having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P. (PIL) No.20 of 2021, paper notification issue<l by the State Government on 09 .O4 .2021 fixing l5 I 16-04.2021 as the date of hearir-rg for the parties, who intend to apply Ior hearing of .rppeals/ revision afresl.r by the Special Tribunal, u,hich remedy was not ar,,ailed bl"' tile petitiorler, the Court is not inclined to grant the rcliel of sctting aside the order on the grour-rd of lack of notice and opportunity.

¶35

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitionr:r submits that though litigation is pending, as rightly observed by the Special Tribunal, the Special Tribunal has not made any observation with reference to the liberty of petitioner to apply to the revenue authorities for mutation, if he succeeds in the civil lrtigation.

¶36

-J

¶37

5.Admiltedl]/,A.S'No.23Tof20ilispendinginthisCourt chalier-rgrng^{thc dccision of trial Court in O S No 6O3 ol 1995 s'hich} is a partition^{suit. Pe titioneralso filccl O S No I 152 ol 2018 in thc} CourtofPrincipalseniorCivilJudge,RangaRcddyDistrictat L.B.Nagar^{seeking declaration of cancellation of sale deed dated} 24.Og.2016^{and the said suit is also pending'}

¶38

Once a civil^{litigation is decided' it is the bounden duty of} revenueauthoritiestogiveeffecttothejudgmentanddecree passed by the^{competent Court and merelybecauseitis not} mentioned,doesnottakeawayrightofthepetitionerfor enforcement^{of the decreegranted in his favour in the pending} suits. However,^{it is needlessto observethat if petitionersucceeds} asserting^{his right and title over thc subjcct propertv' it is ah"'avs} open to him^{to apply to the revenucauthorities lor ellccting} changes in^{tlle revenuerecords in respectof land to an extentol} Ac.B.26^{guntas in Sy'Nos'i94} '^{196' 234' 374 &' 375 of Pasumamla} Village,^{Hayathr-ragarMandal'Ranga Reddv District' ltis also} made clear^{that the Court has not interferedwith the view taken} by the^{SpecialTribunalbut only clarifiedthe legalposition and the} rights^{and ciaims of the parties are preserved'}

¶39

With the^{above observations' the Writ Petition is disposed of'} 7 , Pending^{miscellaneousPetitions'if any,shallstandclosed}

¶40

SD/. R.KAR THIKEYAN ASSISTANT^R EGISTRAR L,/

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

to'',, . -,-n" Principal Secretary' Revenue Department' State of^{Telangana' Secretariat'} Hvderabad and^{Pattadar Pass Book}

¶45

, i{:,"#flq il:,,Uifii* FSJ,TtiSi','5:J[]:lnd : +i: Rt'jii'!, J,l,?'t",$3i;;i^{*';" n"'} "^{i R'n g' Redd v Di st rict} srheRevenu"o'uit'#SlStriJEiilti'ni;p%-tn""di'Ittnatrurkavamjar'Ransa

¶46