Allowed

Pamaraju Thirumala Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Dec 2022WP/18051/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions, setting aside orders passed by the Special Tribunal under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act which deleted the petitioner's name from revenue records. The Court held that the Tribunal violated natural justice by failing to issue mandatory notice to the petitioner and based its decision on findings devoid of material evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Special Tribunal were set aside as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice and the Act. The petitioners were directed to costs were no order passed.

Pamaraju Thirumala Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

I I

t³²⁵⁶ l

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

¶6

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION Nos.18051 and 18197 of 2021

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO: 18051 OF 2021

¶11

Between:

¶12

Pamaraju Thirumala Rao, S/o. late Venkateswara Rao, Age .48 years, Occ:Advocate, R/o. H.No.9-1-77, Medical Colony, Bhadrachalam Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. (erst-while Khammam District) - PIN - 507 111.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

The Special Tribunal Under the Telangana, Rights in Land and Pattadar Pasbook Act, 2020, Rep. by the District Collector, Karimangar District.

¶17

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar Divison, Karimnagar Town and District.

¶18

The Tahsildar, Kothapalli Mandal, Kothapalli, Karimnagar Diskict.

¶19

The Village Revenue Officer, Chintakunta Village, Kothapalli IVandal, Karimnagar District.

¶20

Gurrala Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Rama Krishna Reddy, Aged about. 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-2, Chintakunta Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District'

¶21

...RES'.NDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in No. ST.No.29l2021lD1252512018, d1.23.06.2021 passed by 2nd respondent and set aside the same by duly declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, without^{jurisdiction,} violative of principles of natural^justice, contrary to the provisions of Telangana Rights and Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and also direct the respondents¹ to 5 to pay the compensation and costs.

¶23

)

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 202'l

¶25

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^pleasedto suspend the impugned proceedings passed in ST.No.291202'llD1252512018, lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶26

Between:

¶27

Gurrala Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Rama Krishna Reddy, Aged about. 58^years, Occ. Agriculture. R/o.H.No.3-2, Chintakunta Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶28

...Petitioner/Respondent No.6

¶29

AND

¶30

Pamaraju Thirumala Rao, Sio. late Venkateswara Rao, Age .48 years, Occ:Advocate, R/o. H.No.9-1-77, Medical Colony, Bhadrachalam Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. (erst-while Khammam District) - PIN^- 507 111.

¶31

....RespondenUPetitioner

¶32

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Departmenl, Secretariat Buildings, Secretarlat, Hyderabad.

¶33

The Special Tribunal Under the Telangana, Rights in Land and Pattadar Pasbook Acl,2020, Rep. by the District Collector, Karimangar District.

¶34

The Revenue Divisronal Officer, Karimnagar Divison, Karimnagar Town and District.

¶35

The Tahsildar, Kothapalli Mandal, Kothapalli, Karimnagar District.

¶36

The Village Revenue Officer, Chintakunta Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶37

...Respondents/Respondents 1 to 5

¶38

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated !n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled 1210812021 passed in W.P.No.18051 of 2O21. d1.23.06.2021 by 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI

¶39

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.'l to 5: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶40

Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: SRt CH. SASIBHUSHAN

¶41

¶42

WRIT PETITION NO:^'18197 OF 2021

¶43

¶44

Between:

¶45

Pamaraju Thirumala Rao, S/o. late Venkateswara Rao, Age 48 years, Occ. Advocate, Fl/o. H.No.9-1-77, Medical Colony, Bhadrachalam Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothasudem District. (erst-while Khammam Diskict) - t,* -l:J#lioa

¶46

AND

¶47

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

¶48

The Special Tribunal, Under The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattdar Pass Book Act, 2020, Rep. by the District Collector, Karimangar District.

¶49

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimanagar Division, Karimnagar Town and District.

¶50

The Tahsildar, Kothapalli Mandal, Kothapalli, Karimnagar District.

¶51

The Village Revenue Officer, Chintakunta Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶52

Gurrala Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Rama Krisha Reddy, Aged about. 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, RJo. H.No-3-2, Chintakunta Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶53

Sri PamaraI u Satyanarayana Rao S/o. late Venkateswara Rao (since died on 08.11.2020) per LR

¶54

Smt. Pamaraju Vijayalakshmi, W/o. late Sri Pamaraju Satyanarayana Rao, Aged about. 55 years, Occ. Housewrfe, Rl/o. H.No.3-7-206, Vavilalapalli Village' Karimnagar Town and District

¶55

...RES'oNDENT.

¶56

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to case No.ST/3O12021|D1117991 2020, d1.231O612021 passed by the 2nd respondent and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, without^{jurisdiction,} violative of principles of natural^justice, contrary to the provisions of Telangana Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and also further direct the respondents 1 to 5 to pay compens,rtion and costs.

¶57

lA NO: 'l OF 2021

¶58

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 suspend the impugned^{proceedingspassed} in case No. STl3Ol2021/D1117991 2O2O, d1.23.06.2021 by 2nd respondent,^pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

,/l I,/

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Between:

Gurrala Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Rama Krisha Reddy, Aged about . 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.3-2, Chintakunta Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District-

¶64

...Petitioner/Respondent No.6

¶65

AND

¶66

Pamaraju Thirumala Rao, S/o. late Venkateswara Rao, Age 48 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. H.No.9-1-77, tvledical Colony, Bhadrachalam Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. (erst-while Khammam District)^- PIN^- 507 111.

¶67

....RespondenUPetitioner

¶68

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

¶69

The Special Tribunal, Under The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattdar Pass Book Act, 2020. Rep. by the District Collector, Karimangar District.

¶70

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimanagar Division, Karimnagar Town and District.

¶71

The Tahsildar, Kothapalli Mandal, Kothapalli, Karimnagar District.

¶72

The Village Revenue Officer, Chintakunta Village, Kothapalli lvtandal, Karimnagar District.

¶73

Sri Pamaraju Satyanarayana Rao S/o. late Venkateswara Rao (since died on 08.1 1 .2020) pe' LR

¶74

Smt. Pamaraju Vijayalakshmi, W/o. late Sri Pamaraju Satyanarayana Rao, Aged about.55 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-7-206, Vavilalapalli Village, Karimnagar Town and District.

¶75

(R-7 is not necessary party to this l A')

¶76

...RES'.NDENTS

¶77

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 vacate the interim order granted in W.P. No. 18197 of 2O21 daled 12.08.2021.

¶78

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI

¶79

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶80

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI CH. SA,SIBHUSHAN

¶81

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: NONE APPEARED

¶82

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

)

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶87

WRIT PE"TITION NOs.18051 AND 18197 OF 2O2l

¶88

COMMON ORDER:

¶89

These Writ Petitions are filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the second respondent in Case No.ST.No.29/2O21/D12525/2OlB dated 2,3.06.2O2t and Case No.ST/30 /2021 lDl I 1799 12020 d,ated, 23.A6.2021 and to set aside the same in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.00 gts and Ac.O.10 gts situated in Survey Nos.340/A and 145 lG I 1 respeclively of Chintakunta Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. As the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same and between the very same parties, both the Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶90

¶91

The facts of the case leading to passing the impugned order dated 23.06.2021 are as under:-

¶92

The sixth respondent herein claiming to have succeeded to an extent of Acs.2.OO gts of land situated in Survey No.340/A of Chintakunta Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District, approached the fourth respondent herein requesting for grant of succession on the ground that his deceased father namely Gurrala Ramakrishna Reddy purchased the said extent of land

¶93

¶94

2 MSK,J W.P.NOs- 1aOS l AND 18197 0F 2021

¶95

from one Pamaraju Satyanarayana Rao, who is the brother of the petitioner herein, under a registered sale deed vide document No.6512/2005. It is the case of the sixth respondent that though his deceased father purchased the said extent of land as early as in the year 2005 and the same '*,as ordered to be mutated in his name, the name of his father was not updated in the record of rights till the date of his demise. Hence, after the demise of his fattrer, the sixth respondcnt approached the fourth respondent seeking succession in respect of subject land admeasuring Acs.2.00 gts. The fourth respondent herein, having considered the claim of the sixth respondent issued proceedings No.B/1008/2017 dated 06.10.2017 ordering lor mutation of the name of the sixth respondent in the revenue records in respect of the subject property. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the third respondent herein in appeal Case No.D1332212018 under Section 5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 {"tl:e Act, 1971" for brevity) and the said appeal was allowed by an order, dated 29.11.2019 ordering for restoration of the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records and to issue pattadar pass book in his favour. During the pendency of the said appeal before the third respondent, the operation of

¶96

¶97

3 MSK,J W.P.NOS.IEOSI AND taL97 0F 202t the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the sixth

¶98

respondent herein was stayed. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2OL9 passed by the third respondent, the sixth respondent herein filed revision petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 before the District Collector and the same was transferred to the second respondent in terms of Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2O2O ("tbe Act, 2O2O" for brevity) and the Special Tribunal disposed of the said revision through the impugned order, dated 23.O6.2O2L. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner herein who is the respondent before the Special Tribunal.

¶99

Heard Sri K.Krishna Kishore, learned counsel for the petilioner, Mr. Ch.Sasibhushan, leamed counsel for the sixth respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 5 and perused the material on record.

¶100

Though the name of the sixth respondent's father was stated to have been ordered to be mutated through proceedings No.B/30/2O06 dated 21.03.2006, a copy of the said proceedings is not placed on record. Admittedly, the said proceeding was not given effect to and the name of the sixth respondent's father

¶101

o o,.".n5ifi'o' on*o LAL97 0F 202L

¶102

was not updated in the record of rights during his lifetime. It is only after the demise of his father, the sixth respondent approached the fourth respondent seeking succession and the sarne was allowed by the fourth respondent through proceedings, dated 06.10.20 17.

¶103

The material on record Iiled along with the Writ Petition i.e. the copies of Adangals for the Fasli years 1422 to 1427 i.e. for tlre years 2O1O to 2Ol7 obtained through Mee-seva shows that the name of the petitioner herein was shown as pattadar in respect of the subject property, so also the name of Pamaraju Satyanarayana Rao, who is the brother of the petitioner herein and vendor ol the father of the sixth respondent was also shown as pattadar in respect of an extent of Ac.0.02 gts only in Survey No.340/A. Thus, it is seen that the name of the petitioner herein was shown as pattadar in respect of the subject property, admeasuring Acs.2.00 gts in Survey No.34O/A till the. year 2017. lt is only by virtue of the succession proceedings dated 06.10.2Ol7 issued by the fourth respondent herein, the name of the sixth respondent is ordered to be updated in the revenue records by granting succession. In order to grant succession in favour of the sixth respondent, the name of his deceased father must have been entered in the revenue records, and then the

¶104

¶105

¶106

MSK,J W.P.NOs.18O51 AND tal97 0F 2021

¶107

name of the sixth respondent herein can be entered by granting succession. But, through the said proceedings dated O6.tO.2Ol7, in the guise of granting succession in favour of the sixth respondent, the name of the petitioner herein was ordered to be deleted from the revenue records without putting the petitioner herein on notice. It is not the case of t}re sixth respondent herein that the petitioner herein was put on notice while issuing the said proceedings dated 06. 10.2017. The copies of adangals filed along with Writ Petition and contents there in are not disputed in the counter affidavit liled by the sixth respondent herein. In the absence of any dispute about the adangals for the year 2OlO to 2Ol7 filed along with the Writ Petition and the contents therein, it is obligatory on the part of the fourth respondent to put the petitioner herein on notice before entering the name of the sixth respondent in the revenue records in the place of the name of the petitioner herein.

¶108

In terms of sub-Section 3 of Section 5 of the Act, 1971, it is mandatory on the part of the fourth respondent herein to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or effected by the amendment and also to any other person whom he has reason to believe to be interested in the subject property. In the

¶109

6 MSK,J W.P.NOs.18O51 AND tat97 0F 202L instant case, the name of the petilioner herein is very much shown as pattadar in respect of the subject property in the record of rights. But the petitioner was never put on notice before issuing the proceedings dated 06.10.2017. Thus, in the absence of any dispute about the name of the petitioner being reflected in record of rights as pattadar in respect of the subject property, the failure on the part of the fourth respondent in putting thc petitioner herein on notice, as required under subSection 3 of Section 5 of the Act, 1971 is fatal. This aspect of the matter is also considered by a Full Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case reported in Chinnam Pandurangam v. The Mandal Revenue Officerl, wherein it was held that putting the persons whose names are appearing in the record of rights on notice is mandatory.

¶110

7 . The appeal that was filed by the petitioner herein against the proceedings dated 06.lO.2Ol7 issued by the fourth respondent u,as allowed by the third respondent herein by order dated 29.1 1.2019. One of the grounds for allowing the said appeal is that the petitioner herein was not put on notice. In a revision petition f-rled against the said order dated 29.L1.2O19,

¶111

| 2oo7l6t ,J-D 248 - ArR 2Oo8 Ap lS

¶112

¶113

,/"

¶114

MSK,J W.P.NOs.18051 AND tat97 0F 2021

¶115

the second respondent-Special Tribunal passed a cryptic order,

¶116

which reads as under:-

¶117

"ln view of the above, it is found that, he and the L.R. of the original pattadar sold his share to the Revision Petitioner's in the year 2005 through registered document and it is not implemented in the revenue records and subsequently it was transferred to the Revision Petitioner through Virasath. As per the report of the Tahsildar and panchanama, the Revision Petitioner has been in possession since (35) years. Moreover, the respondent did not Iile any appeal during the lifetime of the seller who is the original brother of the respondent and not challenged the registered document in Civil Court. The Lower Revenue Court faited to observe their possession and passed the order without justification and merits.

¶118

With the above observation, the Iower Revenue Court order is set aside and Tahsildar, Kothapally is hereby directed to restore original entries in record and seize subsequent records if any issued based on the said proceedings.

¶119

Hence, the appeal is allowed on merit. However, both the parties have liberty to approach Civil Court for further claim, if any. These order will not affect on physical possession."

¶120

The second respondent has recorded a finding on factual aspects without there being any material in support of such factual aspects. The hnding of the Special Tribunal that the legal representative of the original pattadar sold his share to the revision petitioner in the year 2005 through registered document is totaliy irrelevant. The Special Tribunal, instead of verifying whether the person, who has sold the subject property to the father of the sixth respondent, is having arly such right or titie over the said extent of land and as to the procedure that is required to be followed under the provisions of the Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder were followed or not, has jumped to a conclusion, as noted herein above. Further the

¶121

B MSK,J W.P.NOs.18O51 AND L8197 0F 202L

¶122

finding of the Special Tribunal that the revision petitioner has been in possession since 35 years is also false on the face of it. As it is the claim of the sixth respondent that his father purchased the. subject property only in the year 2005, the question of revision petitioner being in possession of the subject property since 35 years is contrary to the very ciaim of the sixth respondent. Another finding that the respondent in the said revision petition i.e. the petitioner herein did not f-rle any appeal during the lifetime of the seller of the sixth respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner herein and not chailenged the registered document etc. are also factually incorrect. In fact, the brother of the petitioner herein filed counter before thE third respondent and the same is very much evident from the order passed by the third respondent dated 29.11.2019. Therefore, the finding of the Special Tribunal in this regard is also factually incorrect and perverse.

¶123

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the second respondent in taking into consideration the report and panchanama said to have been submitted by the fourth respondent without putting the petitioner herein on notice is also equally in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the settled

¶124

¶125

MSK,J W.P.NOs.18O51 AND LAt97 0F 202L

¶126

principles of law. It is settled law that when an appeal or revision is filed, the appellate/revisional authorit5r exercising quasi-judicial power is not expected to call for a report from the appellate authority and place reliance on such report, as held by the erstwhile High Court of. the Andhra Pradesh in a judgment reported in the case of K"N.Rao v. Collector, Panchayat Wiug, Guntur2 wherein it was held at para-7 as under:

¶127

"The very practice of calling for reports or parawise remarks on the appeal memorandum by the statutory quasljudicial appellate tribunal or authority unless specifically provided for in the statute or the rules framed thereunder, must be deprecated. Such a procedure is not only unjust and improper but would also prejudice to a great extent the case of the very person who had come to the appellate tribunal with a dellnite case that what has been done by the original authority was illegal, incorrect and unjust."

¶128

Thus, all the findings that are rendered by the second respondent/ Special Tribunal are totally without application of mind and contrary to the factual situation and the same are found to be declared as perverse.

¶129

In the light of the above, this Court is of unhesitant view that the impugned order in W.P.No. 18051 of 2021 suffers [rom the vice of non-application of mind, violation of principles of natural^justice and the same is liable to be set aside and the same is, accordingly, set aside.

¶130

r ArR 1978 AP 444

¶131

10 MSK,J W.P.NOs.18O51Al{D 18197 0F 2021

¶132

Then coming to W.P.No. 18197 of 2O21 , the same is filed under the same fact situated as that of W.P.No.18051 of 2021 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.O.10 gts situated in Survey No. 145/G/ 1 of Chintakunta Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District and all the findings rendered hereinabove in respect of land which is subject matter of W.P.No. 18051 of 2O2l are equally applicable to the land covered by W.P.No.18197 of 2O2l as well. Hence, the impugned order in this Writ Petition is also set aside for the very same reasons.

¶133

From the material on record, it is noticed that by virtue of various orders passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the name of the petitioner continue to appear in the revenue records. Hence, it is left open for the sixth respondent to take appropriate steps for mutation of his name in the record of rights by following due process of law if he is entitled for the same under larv. In case, if ;rny such proceedings are initiated, the petitioner shall be put on notice and then appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with law.

¶134

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner herein has already filed O.S.No.205 of 2018 seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed vide document bearing No.65L2/2OO5 dated 23.OS.2OOS and for certain other reliefs on

¶135

11 MSK,J W.P,NOs.18O51 AND tal97 0F 202L

¶136

the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and the sixth respondent herein has already fiIed his written statement. The said suit may be adjudicated on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in this order, as this Court has not examined about entitlement or disentitlement of the sixth respondent for mutation of his name on merits.

¶137

Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶138

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶139

To,

¶140

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTAN/TREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER

¶141

The Principal^{Secretary,Revenue Department, State of Telangana,} Secretariai Buildings,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad.}

¶142

iha Dl;inct ColleCioi,^{speciat Trii:unal Under the Telangana, Rights in Land} and Pattadar Pasbook^{Act, 2020, Karimangar District}

¶143

s. i'he nevunue oivisionat^{oificer, karimnagirDivision, Karimnagar Town and} District.

¶144

¶145

a. ine finsitaar, Kothapalli^{Mandal, Kothapalli, Karimnagar District'} s. fHi Vitiage R6venue'Officer,^{ChintakuntaVillage, Kothapalli Mandal,} Karimnaoar District.

¶146

o. One CCio Sri Krishna^{KishoreKowuri,Advocate IOPU-CI}

¶147