Allowed

Smt. Boge Laxmi v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC6 Jul 2021WP/6966/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition challenging the Telangana Special Tribunal's order cancelling pattoor pass books and directing land resumption. The Court held the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the underlying petition was not an appeal, violated natural justice, and applied the wrong statute, remanding the matter with directions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Special Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh proceedings with notice.

Smt. Boge Laxmi Vs State of Telangana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ' AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN^RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6966 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Boge Laxmi, W/o Venkati aged about 50^{years Occ. house wife}

¶9

Smt. Jon-gala Salakka, W/o Venkati aged about^{76 years Occ.Housewife}

¶10

Both are R/o Jajjervelli village, Kannepally^{Mandal, Mancherial district.}

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

'1 . State of Telangana, rep by its Principal^{Secretary, Revenue Department} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

1. The Special Tiibunal, District mancherial^{rep by its Chairman District Collector,} Mancherial dist.

¶15

3 The Revenue Divisional officer,^{Bellampally, Mancherial district} 4 The tahasildar, Kannepally mandal,^{Mancherail District.} E Keesari Santhosh, S/ci Bhuchaiah^{FJoNennelvillage and mandalMancherial} district

¶16

...RESP.NDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ol^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High court may be pleased} to issue wr;t order or direction^{more particularly one in the nature of writ of} mandamus declaring the action^{of the respondent No.2 in cancelling the Pattadar} pass books and directing the respondent No.4 to^{resume the land into government} custody on the^ground of^{violationof the assinmentrules vide Proc No.} ST No. 6212021lBl75gl2019^{dated 29.1 .2021 (served on 10.3.2021)underthe} provisions of Telangana rights in Lands and^{Pattedarpass books Act 2020and} without issuing any notice and^{followingthe due process of law, without} .jurisdictionas^{albitrary and illegal and viotation of the principles of natural justice.} violatie of Article 14, 16 and^{3004 of constitutionof lndia consequentlyto set aisde} the same.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 202'l

¶19

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High courl may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of^{the impugnedorder vide sT No. 62120211B175912019} dated 29.1.2021^{(served on 10.3.2021)passed by the respondent No. 2 pending} disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE} Counsel for the Respondent No.5:--'-'

¶21

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

-2-

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.6966 of 2O21

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :

¶27

"...writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in cancelling the Pattadar pass books and iirecting the respondent No.4 to resume the land into government cu-stodv on the ground of violation of the assignmient rules vide proc No. ST No.62 /202 1 1 8 l T 59 l 20 19 dated, 29.O t.2O2t (served on 10.3.2021) under the provisions of Telangana rights in Lands and Pattedar pass books Act 2O2O and withoui issuing any notice and following the due process of law. wihout jurisdiction as arbitrary and illegal and violation of the principles of natural justice, violative of Article 14, 16 and 300A of Constitution of India consequently to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders.,.,,

¶28

Heard Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶29

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of Special Tribunal. In addition to the contention that the Special Tribunal did not issue notice and opportunity before passing final orders, it is also contended that the Special rribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the mhtter placed before it. Therefore, on that ground also, the order is liab1e to be set aside.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners further contend that the application made before the Revenue Divisional officer was with reference to the revenue records, but the Special Tribunal proceeded as if, it is an application made under the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, lgZT (for short the Act, 1977) and directed the Tahsildar to resume the land into Government custody, w$ch is ex facie illegal.

¶31

-3-

¶32

On 19.03.2021, the counsei for the petitioners was permitted to take out notice on the Sth respondent and to file proof of service. Accordingly, notice was taken out, served and proof of service is also filed. Though notice is served on the 56 respondent, no appearance is entered on his behalf.

¶33

The Revenue Divisional Officer, issued notice on 19.10.2019 in response to the petition stated to have been filed before him by the Sfi respondent, praying to cancel the patta granted in favour of petitioners and called upon the petitioners to participate in an enquiry into the contents of the petition. Petitioners were not aware of the contents. According to petitioners, it was not a case ol appeal initiated under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). Under the Act 26 of 7971, the Revenue Divisional Officer was an appellate authority against the decision of Tahsildar, whereas no appeal^{was preferredon} granting mutation in favour of petitioners, but only a^{petition was} made and such petition is not maintainable.

¶34

7 . When lt comes to the Tribunal,^{the orderof Tribunal is} vitiated on three counts.^{Firstly,the Tribunal is vested with} jurisdiction only to deal with the Appeals and Revisions^{filed under} the Act 26 of 197I^{when the said Act was in force, but no other} petition or application. Since^{what was filedbefore the Revenue} Divisional Officer^{was only a petition,but not an appeal,the} Tribunal has no^{jurisdiction; secondly,even assumingthat the} said application^{is an appeal,the Tribunal is requiredto consider} the appeal in accordance^{with the provisions of the Act 26 of \97 |} and the Rules made^{thereunderonly, but it travelled beyond the}

¶35

¶36

scope of^{the Act 26 of 197 |and enteredinto discussion on the} application^{of provisions of the Act' 1977;and thirdly' the Tribunal} has no^{jurisdiction to issue direction to cancel the assignment'to} resume^{the land and to take the land into Government custody'} Thus, on^{all the three aspects' the orderof the Tribunal is not} sustainable,^{even ignoring the ground of no notice and opportunity} of hearing.^{Therefore,the orderimpugned is set aside'}

¶37

Accordingly,^{the matter is remandedto the Special Tribunal'} The Special^{Tribunal shallissuenotice to the parties by lixing date} of hearing in^{advance.The parties shal1 appear beforethe Special} Tribunal on the^{date fixed. It is open to the petitioners to raise all} objections as^{available in 1aw,including maintainabilityof the} matter, referred to^{the SpecialTribunal and the SpecialTribunal} shall consider the^{objectionsraised and pass orders assigning} reasons in support of^{its decision.If the Special Tribunalis} convinced that it^{has no jurisdiction,it shall closethe matterby} giving opportunity to the^{parties to work out remedies as available} in 1aw

¶38

g. Writ Petition is accordingly, a11owed.^{However,it is open to} the Sth respondent to^{work out his remedies as available in law, if} so advised, granting mutation in^{the name of petitionersin the} revenue records or any other^{issue relating to the subject property.} Pending miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, shall stand closed.}

¶39

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Y-/-

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue^{Department,State of Telangana,Secretariat,} Hvderabad.

¶42

The chairman District collector,^{special Tribunal, District mancherial Mancherial} dist.

¶43

The Revenue Divisional officer, Bellampally, [r,/ancherial district 4. The tahasildar, Kannepally mandal, Mancherail District. 5. One CC to Sri G. lVadhusudhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies \ B. One Spare Copy s11l

t{1

HIGH GOURT

DATED:06/07/2021

ORDER

WP.No.6966 ot²⁰²¹

---.-_i
1 r{ e s TA I€:
oottJ 2 7 Ju202l
I6)
t
D€.s

¶52

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

Y
>3

Smt. Boge Laxmi v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Boge Laxmi v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pinjarla Muthyalu Yadav Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Paka Swarooa Rani and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Thipparthi Rajanna , Avusali Rajanna Vs The State of Telangana

Moola Vishnu Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Thandra Sudhakar Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Ramanaboylna Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others