Allowed

Ingu Ratan Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Sept 2022WA/348/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside a joint collector's endorsement that declared a respondent the rightful owner and permitted police assistance for land entry without a hearing to the opposing appellant group.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 15.12.2017 declaring the respondent No. 7 as the rightful owner and permitting police assistance was set aside. The order of the Single Judge dated 22.01.2018 was also set aside.

Ingu Ratan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

."*.t'

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 348 OF 2018

¶8

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 22-01-2018 in WP.No.1429 of 2018 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 Sri. lngu R_atan Kumar, S/o. l. Pochaiah, aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. C-502, Jayabheri Orange Country,^-Near WIPRO Circle, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

¶11

Sama Bharath Reddy. S/o. S. Bhikshama Reddy, aoed about 35 vears. R/o.H-No.1-18/1 , Madha Yedavally, Narketpally Mandal,-Nalgonda Distri'ct.

¶12

Sunkireddy Raghavenrljrr Egggy,_gjo S. Krishna Reddy, aged about 37 Ieal?, 9c9,^{Business, R/o H.No75B,SrinivasaApartments, 5rd Floor, Old} Santhosh Nagar Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

Rep by their GPAs

¶14

S. Mahendar Raju, S/o S. Satyanarayana, aqed about 30 vears. Occ. Profession, R/o Plot No. 302, Vipra's the Elite, Kakateeya hills,- Madhapur,

¶15

. Hyderabad.

¶16

N.Ram Mohan S/o N.Sadanand, aged about 30 years, Occ. profession, Fl/o Plot No. 302, Vipra's the Elite, Kakateeya hills, Ma<ihapur, Hyderabad.^{'- -}

¶17

...APPELLANTS

¶18

AND

¶19

The State of Telangana, rep. by Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶20

The_ Djskici Collector, l\iledchal - Malkajgiri District, at Keesara, Medchal - Malkajgiri District.

¶21

The Joint Collector, Medchal - Malkajgiri District.

¶22

The Tahsildar, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District.

¶23

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, R.R. District.

¶24

Station House Officer, Bachupally police Station, Cyberabad.

¶25

-S*

¶26

7 K. Jaya Chandra Reddv. Retired Judge Supreme Court of lndia, R/o Prashasan Nagar, Jubiiee Hrlts Hr;;i;b;;''"' '"""'

¶27

8 Smt.Saroiini Devi. Wo late Sri Justice K.Jayachandra Reddy, Aged about g3#ff:,^{*,", 4 1} .r 5, prestiase s h;;i; k;i;;: Wiirtljli?,ri Road, Ba ngarore _

¶28

Smt.M.Swarnalatha. D/o tate Srj Justice K Jayachandra Reddy, Aged about Rlo 4115,^presiiage sha,ti;lk;ta;Wfiil Fi;id" Road, Barisatore

¶29

33Jr??,'

¶30

Smt K.Anitha. Wo Late,K..Sudhakar Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Rlo 7084. Prestiage Shantiniketan White eLiJ no-ao]t""rn'ajo?" _ 560048

¶31

Smt.Nischita Merla. Wo Sri Ramana Merla, D/o K.Sudhakar Reddv. Aoed 33lULiJ.."t:T3bfl 37084'n'"Jti's"dh-;ni;,'"iri"t,ilwr,;G'Ei"ilH?;t""

¶32

K.Anwesh, S/o Sri Late K,pgdh3.kg1 Reddy, Aged about 35 years, R/o 7084. prestiase shantin iketan wrrite Fier j ii"ril rj j""i,I lEie s60oas.

¶33

(Respondent Nos.8 to 1. are brought on record as Lrs of deceased respondent No 7 as oer court oru6r oiieo i7'fiin&zVide rA No 1 0f 2021 in WA No 348 of 201'B)

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

I.A,NO :1 OF 2018

¶36

Petition Under Section. ]5J CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of th6 petitiol,li,"iligh'i;rrt mav be preased to direct the respondents not to inlerfere wi,r irre- poi..irio" and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subiect land ,Jr"r.riirlg l30t sq. yards in Sy.No.332 of Nizampet village, Bachupally Mandal, fvfeOcnai] f,rf rf'f,rigir.i District.

¶37

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI.M.A.K.MUKHEED

¶38

Counset for the Respondent Nos.l to 4:SRt.PARSA ANANTH NAGESWARA RAO / GP FOR REVENUE

¶39

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.S & G : SR,.T.SRIKANTH REDD'/ cp FOR HOME

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 12: SRI.G.RAMACHANDRA REDDY

¶41

The Court made the following ORDER

¶42

¶43

I I I ;l ,l ,I i{ i"l

¶44

THE HON ,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJITAL BHT]'TAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHA ST(AR REDDY

¶45

WRrT AppEAL No.348 of 2O18

¶46

JUDGMENT: per the Horl,bte the Chief Justice Uiat Bhusan)

¶47

Heard Mr. M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. parsa Ananth Nageswara Rao, learned Government pleader for Revenue representing respondents No. 1 to 4; Mr. T.Srika,th Reddy, learned Government pleader lor Home appearing lor respondents No.5 and 6; and Mr G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.7 to 12.

¶48

This intra_court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.01.201g passed by the learned Singte Judge disposing of W.p.No. 1429 of 2O1B filed by the appeltants as the writ petitioners.

¶49

The related writ petition was fiied assailing the endorsement made by the Joint Collector, Medchal_Malk4jgrri District, dated 1S. 12.2012. It may be mentioned that by the tmpugned endorsement, the Joint Collector declared that

¶50

¶51

respondent No.7 (since represented by^{hisiegal heirs} respondents No.B to 12) is the^{rightful owner ol the subject} land and was in^{possessionthereof since 24.lO.2OO7as per} Government a-ilotment vide^{G.O.Ms.No. i} i46,^Revenue (ASN-V) Department, dated 30.08.2007. Joint^Collector further clarified that respondent^{No.7 had everyright to enter} into his land and while doing so he^{may take police} assistalce from the concerned Station^{House Officer.}

¶52

4 . Learned Single Judge a-fter due consideration^{heid as} fo11or,",s:

¶53

"A reading of the impugned^{endorsement merely} shows that respondent No.7^{was informedof his right} to enter the land with the Police assistance^{and in the} said process, respondent No.3 had narrated^{the events} leading to such conclusion. The narration of^facts cannot be held to be determinative^{of the right of the} parties and if there is any dispute with regard to^the rights of the parties, it is always open^{to the partiesto} work out their remedies in accordance with law. So^far as the opinion expressed by respondent^{No.3 with} regard to tlre pima facie right of respondent^No.7to enter into the land by taking Police assistance^is concerned, this Court sees no^ground to interfere^with the said observation or opinion. As the^observation made in the last paragraph of the^impugned

¶54

¶55

I I I

¶56

endorsement dated I S.l2.2ol7 ls not affecting the rights of the parties, except clarifying lhe position, this Court is not inclined to interferc with the said endorsement. If the parties feel that their rights are affected, it is open to them to work out their remedies rn accordance with law.

¶57

The Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed o[. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shail stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs,,.

¶58

From a perusal of the above, it is seen that learned Single Judge took the view that by the impugned endorsement, respondent No.7 was only informed of his right to enter into the land with police assistance. Narration of facts in the impugned endorsement cannot be held to be determinative of the rights of the parties. If there is any 'dispute with regard to the rights of the parties, it is open to them to work out their remedies in accordance with law. Opinion expressed by the Joint Collector was with regard to prima facie right of respondent No.7 to enter into the land 6; taking police assistance. Therefore, learned Single Judge found no ground to interfere with the impugned endorsement.

¶59

¶60

Orr appeal, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed order dated 08.03.201g admitting the appeal and suspending the impugned endorsement. That apart, status quo with regard to possession as on 08.03.2018 li,as directed to be marntained. Relevant portion of the order dated 08.03.2018 reads as under.

¶61

" Pima facie, the Joint Collector lacks

¶62

j u risdiction to pass the rmpugned endorsement or to direct the S.H.O Bahchupally to provide police prolection to enter th apperrants-writpetitioneres;:,tf l"nir[T":Ji: be in possession therec without even putting the appeirants-writ petitione'} giving them ", "oo"i:,#;'::;-l:J'^il

¶63

consider it afpropriate, therefore, to suspend the rmpugned endorsement. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the title of either the appellan t-writ petitioner{ the subject rand or "" ,";;.::fi::::::f ,i..1"1, for these are all matters which the ^^-+;^^ ^_ in appropriat. r.g.r p.o"J[:"}i|::t;: :::r:"": Civil Court.

¶64

Suffice it to direct possession as on date, i1;'T'ff;",il"T::; further orders. The District Collector, Medchal_ Malkajgiri District shall caused or the subject,",j::il::#:TrJi:H: Court forthwith, and in any event within one .{,eek

¶65

¶66

r I

¶67

lrom today, regarding thc nature of construction already made over the subject lands. No further construction shall be raised on the subject land nor shal1 the parties to these proceedings alienate or create third party rights thereupon, or change the nature of the land, pending further orders."

¶68

7 . Section 9 of the erstwhile Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 dealt with the power of revision. As per Section 9, the Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 58, in respect of any recoid of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or proprietar5r of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. However, as per the proviso, no such order adversely affecting any d. person shall be passed under Section 9, unless the person had an opportunity of making a representation. Section 2(2)

¶69

¶70

of the aforesaid^{Act defines"Co1lector" to meax, Collector of a} District and includes Joint^Collector.

¶71

From a careful and conjoint^{reading of Section 9 and} Section 2(2\ of the^{aforesaid Act, it is evidentthat be it the} Collector or the Joint^{Collector, he has only the power of} revision either suo motu or^{on arr appiication to examine the} regularity, correctness,^{legalityor proprietar5r of any decision} taken or orders^{passed orproceedings made bythe} sub-ordinate revenue authorities.^{If the Collectoror the Joint} Collector feels that such^{decision,order or proceedings are} not in order, the same pay^{be modified, annulled or reversed} or remitted for reconsideration^{a-fter hearing the affected} persons

¶72

'9. Reverting back to the impugned endorsement, we Iind that no notice was issued^{to the appellants, who, it appears,} have a dispute with respondent^{No.7 over the subject} property. Without notice and^{hearing,JointCollectormade} the deciaration in the impugned^{endorsementabout} respondent No.7 being the rightful^{owner and possessorof} the subject land and that^{he had everyright to enter into his}

¶73

¶74

¶75

land for^{r,r,hich he may take police assistanceThat apart' we} lind such declaration^{of the Joint Collector to be wholly} unwarranted^{and unauthorizedby law'}

¶76

In the circumstances,^{we set aside the order of the} iearned Single Judge^{dated22'Ol '2OlBpassed} 1n W.P.No. 1429 of^{2O1B as well as the endorsementdated} 15.12.2017 with^{liberty to the parties to workouttheir} remedies in respect of their land^{disputebelorethe} appropriate forum

¶77

Writ appeal is^{accordingiyallowed.}

¶78

stald closed.^{However,there shall be no order as to costs}

¶79

SD/.K.ONES DEPUTY REGIST R //TRUE COPY//

¶80

SECTION OFFICER

¶81

¶82

The Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶83

The District Collector, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Keesara, Medchal - Malkajgiri District.

¶84

3 The Joint Collector, Medchal - Malkajgiri District.

¶85

4 The Tahsildar, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri Diskict. t The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, R.R. DistriCt.

¶86

The Station House Officer, Bachupally Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶87

7 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Staie of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶88

8 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶89

One CC to SRI.M.A.K.MUKHEED, Advocate [OPUC]

¶90

10 one cc to SRt.G.RAITIACHANDRA REDDy, Advocate 1oeuc1 11 Two CD Copies 12 One spare copy

HIGH COURT

DATED:22t09t2022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.348 of 2018

E SIATA:
i
(o
3
2022
L,] 3[ SEP
'a

¶97

ALLOWING THE W.A

¶98

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶99

M
3.\q l-,".----

Ingu Ratan Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ingu Ratan Kumar 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

M/s Divi Metal Industries Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Anantha Sai Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana and others

M/s. B.N.R. Stone Crusher, Vs State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Industries

M/s. Golkonda Aluminum Extrusions Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Golkonda Aluminum Extrusions Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Rockwool India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) and 4 others