Dismissed

Butham Vamshikrishna v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC4 Jul 2022WA/244/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal against an order directing a Tahsildar to implement a Special Tribunal's decision on land mutation. The Court held that no interference was warranted as the single judge's order did not adversely affect the appellant and directed notice to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Butham Vamshikrishna Vs State of Telangana and 4 others — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 244 OF 2022

¶7

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against the Order Dated 0610912021^passed in the WP.No.2025B of 2021 , on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Butham Vamshikrishna, S/o. Late Mahesh Aged. 26years, Occ. Agriculture R/o.Kotapalli Village, Kotapalli Mandal, Mancherial District

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

District Collector, Mancherial-Distrlct.

¶14

Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Mancherial District.

¶15

Tahsildar, Kotapalli Mandal, Mancherial District

¶16

Purella Swami, S/o Purella Balaaih R/o H.No.6-58/8 , Myadaram village Dharmaram Mandal, Jagityal Dist

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Rbspondent No.5 not to alienate the land Sy.No 50 extent Ac 4-12 Gts in Janagam village of Kotapally Mandal, Mancherial District taking advantage of the mutation of the revenue records pending disposal of the main petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SAIDAM LAXMINAYANA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI S.SHARAT KUMAR

¶23

The Court delivered the following:

¶24

TTTE^{HON'BLE THE CHIEF} \L BITTIYAry

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶27

WRIT APPEAL No,244 of 20'.22

¶28

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'bte uE Chief Justice Ujjat Bhugan)

¶29

Heard Mr. Laxminarayana, learned lounsel for the appellant and Mr. S.Sharat Kumar, learnt:d counsel who has entered appearance for respondent No.5,.

¶30

This writ appeal has been preferred aglainst the: order dated 06.09.202 1 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.20258 of 2O2L filed by respc'ndent No.5.

¶31

Be it stated that respondent No.S had filed the related writ petition seeking implementation of th e order dated OL.O2.2O2I passed by the District Collector, Manctrerial. The facts relatable to the writ petition as n,errated b,y the learned Single Judge in the order dated 06.09.2021 read as I I under:

¶32

¶33

"A perusal of the record discloses that challenging the mutation proceedings isr;ued by

¶34

¶35

respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar, Kotapally, in favour of respondent No.S, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed an order on O9.03.2018 canceling the mutation in favour of respondent No.S. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.S has filed a revision petition before the respondent No.2-District Collector. In the meantime, the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, has been repealed by the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2O2O (for short, Act No.9 of 2020J arrd the file was tralsferred to the Special Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Act No.9 of 2O2O. The Special Tribunal vide order dated 01.02.2021 dismissed the revision petition allirming the order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the respondent No.3.

¶36

Though the Special Tribuna-l has dismissed the revision petition on Ol.O2.2O2l, the said order has not been challenged till date. Further, as per Section 16(2) of Act No.9 of 2O2O, the order passed by the Special Tribunal shall be implemented at the earliest. Therefore, ttris Court is of the prima facie opinion that ends of justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Kotapally, to implement the order dated, O7.O2.2O21, passed by the Special Tribunal, at the eadiest."

¶37

On the above factual background the writ petition was disposed of directing respondent No.4 i.e., Tahsildar,

¶38

t I

¶39

¶40

Kotapally, to implement the order dated 01 02.2O2l^passed by the Specia-l Tribunal, but before^passing any fresh order he was directed to issue notice to the interested^parties.

¶41

Grievalce expressed by the appell€mt is that the appellant was respondent No.5 in the writ petition; rvithout issuing notice to the appellant and without hearing the appella-nt, the writ petition filed by respondent No.5 was disposed of. He has further referred to the notice dated 06.12.2021 issued by the Tahsildar and submits ttrat the Tahsildar has already taken a view, th,lt too vzithout hearing the appellant, on the strength c,f order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.09.2021.

¶42

Relevant portion of the order dated 06.09.202 1 reads as under:

¶43

¶44

"Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Kotapally, to implement the order dated 01.O2.2021 passred by the Special Tribunal, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the respondent No.4, before passing any orders, shall put all the interested parties on notice. A

¶45

I ,

¶46

-1

¶47

copy of the order passed, if any, sha-ll be communicated to the parties."

¶48

7 . From a perusa-l thereof, we find that the learned Single Judge had directed the Tahsildar to implement the order dated Ol.O2.2O2l, but before doing that, to put all the interested parties on notice and to hear them. Be it stated that the order dated 01.02.2021 was passed by the Special Tribunal dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellalt against the order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer setting aside mutation proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar.

¶49

On due consideration, we do not find any error or infirmity with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Though, ideally, appellant ought to have been put on notice before passing the linal order, since the final order did not adversely affect the appellant; rather the Tahsildar was directed to issue notice and to hear the appellant before I^{passing the order, no interference is called for in the order} I of the learned Single Judge.

¶50

, I

¶51

)

¶52

Insofar the notice issued by th': Tahsildar is concerned, if the appellant is aggrieved by the said notice on account of misconstruing the order dated 06.O9.t).021, it is open to the appellant to challenge the said notice in an appropriate forum.

¶53

Subject to the above, writ appeal is di;missed.

¶54

1 1. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶55

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

¶57

SD/-CH.VENKATESWARULU I)EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1 SECT|Ol.l OFFICER

¶58

To,

¶59

One CC to SRI SAIDAM LAXMINARAYANA,^{Advocate IOPUCI}

¶60

One CC to SRI S.SHARAT KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

Two CCs to the GP for Revenue, High Court^{for the Sta':eof Telanqana.} lourl

¶62

Two C.D. Copies 5. One Spare Copy MRC SB

HIGH COURT

DATED:O41O712022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.244 ol 2022

/
N
t

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

t,d,J @ il.,

Butham Vamshikrishna v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Butham Vamshikrishna 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

Tabeti Suresh Kumar Vs Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) and another

M/s Tnr Industries (P) Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Sudhalcar Gupta and anothers Vs Singidi Ram Reddy

News Item published Vs State of Telangana

Kodicherla Anjalaiah and 15 others Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

K.Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana