Dismissed

Bankatlal Bhati, v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal

Telangana HC22 Jul 2022WA/900/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench dismissed a writ appeal filed against a Single Judge's order. The lower court had remanded a land dispute involving succession claims and protection of tenancy rights to the Joint Collector for factual determination under the Tenancy Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed. No costs. Interim order of 04.01.2006 recalled and miscellaneous petitions stood dismissed.

Bankatlal Bhati, Vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO: 900 OF 2006

¶6

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Common order dated 27-06-2006 in WP No. 3243 ot 2005 on the file of the High Court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Bankatlal Bhati, S/o Heeralal Bhati, aged about 31 years, Occupation: Business, No 14-4-362, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶9

Sharada Bhati, Wo Bhairan Bhati, aged about 31 years, Occupation: Household No. 14-4-362, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶10

Ram Prakash Gelhot, Sio Banat Lal Gelhot, aged about 47^years, Occupation: Business, No 14-4-108, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶11

Prakash Devi Gelhot, Wo Ram Prakash Gelhot, aged about 44^years, Occupation: Household, No 14-4-108, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶12

...APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

Mallela Sathaiah, Sio Mallela Kistaiah, aged about 56^years, Occupation: Agriculture, Fl/o. Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distric.t.

¶16

Mallela Mukundam, S/o Mallela Kistaiah, aged about 51^years, Occupation: Agriculture, Fl/o. Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

Mallela Padmaiah, S/o Mallela Kistaiah, aged about 46 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Rl/o. Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

5 Mallela Dayanandam, S/o. Mallela Kistaiah, aged about 41^ye ars, Occu pation: Agriculture, Rl/o Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

...RESPONOENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶20

WAMP. NO: 1889 OF 2006

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to

¶22

suspend the operation and effect of the order of the 1'r respondent in File No 8.1414612003 dated 25-08-2004, pending disposal of the above writ appeal.

¶23

WAMP. NO:^'t600 OF 2007

¶24

Between:

¶25

'1 . Mallela Sathaiah, S/o Mallela Kistaiah, aged about 56 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Rl/o. Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶26

Mallela Mukundam, S/o Mallela Kistaiah, aged about 51^years, Occupation: Agriculture, Rl/o. Palamakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶27

Mallela Padmaiah, S/o Mallela Kistaiah, aged about 46 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Rl/o. Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶28

Mallela Dayanadam, S/o. Mallela Kistaiah, aged about 41^years, Occupation: Agriculture, Fl/o Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶29

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT No.2 to 5

¶30

AND

¶31

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Di(trict

¶32

....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶33

Bankatlal Lal Bhati, S/o. not known, Aged major, Occupation: Business,

¶34

Sharadha Bhati, W/o not known, Aged major, Occupation: Household

¶35

Ram Prakash Gelhote, S/o not known, Aged major, Occupation: Business,

¶36

Prakash Devi Gelhote, S/o not known, aged major Occupation: Business, Respondents 4 to 7 Ri/o. C/o. Hiralal Bhati, Ganesh Super Market, R.B. Nagar, Shamshabad, R.R. District.

¶37

..;RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS 1 to 4

¶38

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 vacate the interim order passed in WA No. 900/2006 in WAMP No. 1889/2006, dt. 04-9-2006 in the interest of^justice.

¶39

WAMP. NO:1722 OF 2008

¶40

Petition under Section 151 CPC prayinq that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶41

permit the petitioner to withdraw the vacate stay petition in W.A.M.p.No.1600 of 2007 in W.A.M.P. No.1889/2006 as the same has become in fractious in View of the interim orders passed in WAMP No.1889/2006 made absolute on^,13-10-2006.

¶42

WAMP. NO: 1723 OF 2008

¶43

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the date of hearing in the above Writ Appeal.

¶44

WAMP. NO: 2905 OF 2014

¶45

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 expedite the date of hearing in the above Writ Appeal.

¶46

WAMP. NO: 55 OF 2011

¶47

Between:

¶48

Mallela Sathaiah, S/o Late tvlallela Kistaiah, aged about 62 years, Occlpation: Agriculture, Rl/o. Palamakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy} District.

¶49

Mallela Mukundam, S/o Late Mallela Kistaiah, aged about 57 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o. Palamakole Village, Shamshabad Mbndal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶50

Mallela Padmaiah, S/o Late Mallela Kistaiah, aged about 52 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Rl/o. Palamakole Village, Shamshabad ti/andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶51

Mallela Dayanadam, S/o Late Mallela Kistaiah, ag Occupation: Agriculture, Ri/o Palamakole Village, S^ed hamshabad^about47 Mandal,^yearc, Ranga Reddy District.

¶52

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶53

AND

¶54

Bankatlal Lal Bhati, S/o. Heeralal Bhati, Aged major, Occupation: Business, 2. Sharadha Bhati, S/o.Bhairan Bhati, Aged major, Occupation: Household J. Ram Prakash Gelhote, S/o Banat Lal Gelhot, Aged major, Occupation: Business,

¶55

4 Prakash Devi Gelhote, S/o Ram Prakash Gelhot, aged major Occupation: Business, Respondents 1,to 7 R4o C/o. Hiralal Bhati, Ganesh Super Market, R.B. Nagar, Shamshabad, R.R. District.

¶56

... RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS

¶57

¶58

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶59

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶60

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^pass ad-interim injunction order restraining the Respondent Nos.1 to 4/ appellants from making any construction in respect of agricultural land in Sy. No.1^{1 (old)} Corresponding to new Sy. No. 46, admeasuring Ac. 4.29^guntas, situated at Palmakal Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶61

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI D. B. CHAITANYA REP. FOR SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS

¶62

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI PARSAANANTH NAGESHWAR RAO, GP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT)

¶63

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR

¶64

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶65

¶66

THE HO N'BLE THE CHIEF IUSTICE UIIAL BHTIYAN and

¶67

THE HON'BLE MRS. IT]S ICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶68

W.A.No. 900 of 2006

¶69

IIIDGMENT (h. ttt t tr,r'bb th (hi4.l'n;i ltjid hh'yr)

¶70

I Ieard Mr. D.B.Chaitanya, Ieamed counsel rcprcscn ring Mr. 'edula Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellanrs; Mr. Parsa ,'\nanth Nagcshwar Rao, learned Government Pleader for Rcvcnuc (,\ssignment) appearing for respondent No.1; and Mr. Surcsh Shiv Sapar, learned counscl for respondents No.2 to 5.

¶71

2 On 18.01 .2022, we had passed the following order

¶72

"None appears for the appellants on call, though iv{t. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned :\ssistant (lovernment Pleader for Revenue , appcars fcrr respondent No.1 and Mr. Suresh Shiv Sagar, learncd counscl al)pears for respondents No.2 to -5.

¶73

\'e havc gone through the judgment and ordcr datcd 27.06.2006 passed by the learned Singlc Judgc disposing o[ the rvrit petition filed by respondcnrs \o.2 to 5.

¶74

Pina fane, we do not find any error or infirnritr in the r.terv takcn by the learned Single Judge ro \rarrinr interfcrcnce.

¶75

¶76

This appeal is pending since the year 200(r with interim stay.

¶77

List on 22.07.2022 under the caption^,,[or dismissal"."

¶78

When the case is [sted today, learned counscl for the appellants seeks adjoutnment to ascertain from the appellants as to whether any live issue survives for adjudicadon in this appeal. In view o[ what we have recorded in our order dated 1g.07.2 022, we are not inclined to graflt adiournment to lcarned counscl for the appellants, more so, the writ appeal bcing <tf the year 2006.

¶79

1 This writ appeal has been filcd assailing the legaliry and validiry of the order dared27.06.2006 passcd by thc lcarncd Single Judge^{disposing of} .writ petirion Nos.20647 of 2OO4 and 3243 oF 2005. The present appeal pertains to wrir periri()n No.3243 of 2005

¶80

-5. Appeliants as the peridoners hacl filccl thc rclated writ pctiuon seeking a dfuection to the ofFrcial rcspondcnts to cluash the , proccedings dated 25.08.2004 of the N{anclal Rcvcnuc OFficer, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, in rcspcct of Sun.cv No.11

¶81

¶82

(old)/Survey No.46 (new) admcasuring Acs.4.29 guntas situated at Palamakole Viilage, Shamshabad Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. Relevant [acts have been notcd by the learncd Single Judge in the

¶83

following manner:

¶84

'The petitionets in W.P.No.20647 of 2004 claim to be the successors in tide of one l{allela Kishtaiah. Alleging that Kishtaiah was a protccted tenant and that they were dispossessed from the land, the peridoners therein filed an application under Section 32 as well as Section 40 of the Andhra Ptadesh (l'elangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural L.ands Act, 1951J (for shorr'the Act). By ptoceedings dated 25.08.2004, thc Nlandai Revenue Officer while granting succcssion in thcir favour dLected to induct them into possession in respcct of the land in Survey No.46 situatcd at Palamakolc \rillagc, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga ltcddy District. l]rerctbrc, they filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officcr to implemcnt thc said order puportedly passed undcr Sections -12 and "10 oi the ;\ct. After receiving notices ordered by this Courq rcspondcnt Nos.4 to 7 (in (.P.No.20617 of 2004) filed W.P.No.3243 of 2005 seeking invalidatir.rn of the procccdings oi lhc Mandal Revenue Officer, datcd 25.08.20()'1, on grrunds more than one."

¶85

4:z

¶86

Thereafrcr, learned Single Judgc noted rhat the dispute was in respect of land in Sun,ev No.4(> (old Survey No.11) situated at Palamkole Village, Shamshabad l,{andal in Ranga Reddy District. The genesis of the dispute was rccordccl by the learned SingleJudge as under:

¶87

"()ne Panthangi Rama Swamy was the pattadar and the landholder. Hc fell in arrears of excise to the Governmcnt of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the land admcasuring Acs.13.12 guntas in Survey No.46 was aucuoncd.^()nc Barrdaru Rajaiah purchased it in the public aucrion and thc District Collector, Hydcrabad, issued a sale ccrtjfrcate under Section 38 of thc r\ndhra Pradcsh Revcnue Recovery Act, 1864, on 23.03.1965 in his favour. It is on record that the saicl Rajaiah sold the land unclcr a registered sale deed datcd 11.09.1981 in favour <>f one Jaffar Bin Salam and scven others, who in rurn sold the land to the petiti<;ncrs undcr a rcgistcred sale deed dated 30.06.1995. 1'he pctirioncrs allege that they constructed farmhouscs on the land and raised mango garden besicles cuhivadng paddy in part oI the land.⁽⁾ⁿ tlre othe r ]ranrl. rcspondenr Nos.2 to 5 (the lcgal hcirs o[ Iiishtaiah), who claim to be the protcctetl rcflanrs, claim rhar bcing legal heirs of Kislrraiah. thcv arc cntirlerl lrrr grant of succcssion

¶88

and restoration of possession. Their version was accepted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, who incidentally also invited objecdons from the petitioners. After considering the obiections, the Mandal Revenue Officer recorded a finding that the protected tenant has already surrendered an extent of Acs.4.07 guntas in Surwey No.46 and accordingly issued order for restoration of possession in respect oI the land admeasudng Acs.4.29 guntas.,,

¶89

After adverting ro the rival contentions and considering the materials on record, learned Single Judge took the view that there are disputed quesrions of fact, which should be considered by the Joint^{collector under Secrion} 90 of the Andhra^pradesh (ferangana Area)-Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (briefly ,the Act, hereinafter). Accordinglv, appellanrs were given liberry to file appeal within a period o f one week whereafter, the appeilate authority was dirccted to dispose o[ the appeal within eight weeks by giving norice ro thc appellants. Till such exercise was completed, ,it^{was clirectecl rhat rcspondentsNo.2 to 5 should not bc </sup> dispossesscd from the land in <luestion.}

¶90

::6::

¶91

(->

¶92

3 Relcvant portion of the order of the learned Single Judgc

¶93

date<1, 26.06.2()06 rcads as under:

¶94

"A plain reading of the above would show that by the date thc said communication was addressed, thc applicatron filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 or Laxmamma and fout others was pending before the l.Iandal Revenue Officer. This would tl.uow some doubt with regatd to passing of the impugned order datcd 25.08.2004, wheteby and whereunder respondent Nos.2 to 5 were granted succession as u,ell as an order of restoration in respect of the land adnrcasuring Acs.4.29 guntas. This calls for an cnquir,,. To do so, the appellate authority would be t hc Lrr'.r suited.

¶95

'l hcrcfore, this Court is not inclined to go into the mcrits of the case at this stage. A1l the questions and submission ooticed hereinabove shall have to bc consideted by thc Joint Collector under Section 90 of the .\cr as and whcn an appeal is preferred by the pctitioncrs.^'Ihe petitionets may &le the appeal within a pcriod of one week from the date of receipt of a copr, of thrs ordcr. As and when such appeal is filed, the -Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, shall takc r.rp the appeal, and after giving notices to rcsponclent Nos.2 to 5, dispose of the appeal within a pcriod of erght weeks from the date of filing of thc

¶96

¶97

appeal. Till such exercise is completed by the Joint Collector, the writ pctitioners shall not bc dispossessed."

¶98

\X,'e do not flnd any error or infrmity in the order passcd bv the learned Single Judge. No substantive rights o[ thc appcllants have becn infringed or affected by the aforesaid ordcr of the Iearncd Single.f udge. We fail to undetstand as to hr.,w appcllants can have any gricvance against such an order. Therefore, no casc lor intcrfcrencc is made out.

¶99

Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

¶100

11.^{(.onsequendy,} interim order passed by this^(lourt on 0.1.09.2006, which was made absolute on 13.10.200(r, stands

¶101

recallccl

¶102

Ilisccllancous pcridons, pending if an stand ckrscd

¶103

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTYJSEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qb

SECTIOiI OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP for Revenue^{(Assignment),High Court for the Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3 One CC to SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR,^Advocate TOPUCI

¶108

4 Two CD Copies. 5 One Spare Copy

,tlv'------SW

H!GH COURT

DATED:2210712022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.900 of 2006

1 s IA l't
o
o 1 I AIJE 20?2 Z
;.
*
D

¶117

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶118

(1)
<br>

Bankatlal Bhati, v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bankatlal Bhati, v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal

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

The Divisional Forest Officer Nirmal, Adilabad District. Vs Sollu Narasaiah

Sri Veera Hanuman Devalayam Cheruvu Vs The State of Telangana

State Bank of India Vs Union of India and 3 others

The Depot Manager Vs a.Sankar

Padige Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Syed ZainulAbedin Vs Ahsan Ali Khan