Allowed

Panduga Balraju and 3 others v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC25 Apr 2022WP/19927/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Special Tribunal's dismissal of an appeal under the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The court quashed the Tribunal's order as beyond its jurisdiction and restored the appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer for proper adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order of the Special Tribunal set aside and file restored to the Revenue Divisional Officer for adjudication by issuing notice within two months.

Panduga Balraju and 3 others Vs State of Telangana and 4… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL IWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 19927 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Panduga Balraju, S/o Anjaiah, Aged⁴¹ years, Occ Driver, R/o Bommalaramaram Village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy District).

¶8

Neerudu Padma, W/o Babu, Aged 29^years, Occ.^{Household,F|/o Yadgiripally} village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District^{(ErstwhileRanga Reddy} District).-.

¶9

Desu Ramulamma, W/o Nagaiah, Aged 54^years, Occ.^Household, R/o Vanneguda, Keesara [,4andal, Medchal-Malkajgiri^{District (Erstwhile} Ranga Reddy District).

¶10

Kalpaguri Venkalu, W/o Ramulu, Aged 52^years, 9cc.^Ho_!'ss6.14, R/o Bogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri^{District (Erstwhile} Ranga Reddy District).

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary,^{RevenueDepartment,} Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Special Tribunal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.^{Rep.by Collector and District} Magistrate Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶15

The Collector and District Magistrate,^{Yadadri-BhongirDistrict.}

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer Bhongir,^{Yadadri-BhongirDistrict.}

¶17

The Tahsildar, Bommalaramaram^{[Vlandal, Yadadri-BhongirDistrict.}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an order or direction more^{particularlyone in the nature of writ} of certiorari and call for the records^{and quashthe order of the Respondent} No.2-Tribunal passed in Special Tribunal^{Case No.F2l156712021 (RDO, Bhongir} Appeal File No.D/146i2017), dated^{0210912021as the Appeal of the petitioners} filed under sections 38-E and⁴⁰ of^{TelanganaTenancy and Agricultural Lands} Act, 1950, in respect of the^land in^{Sy.No.203 admeasuring Ac.4-23 guntas,}

¶20

Sy.No.204, admeasuring Ac.4-26 guntas, Sy.No.217 admeasuring Ac.3-18 guntas, Sy.No.21B admeasuring Ac.4-23 guntas, Sy.No.21g admeasuring Ac.420 guntas, Sy.No.232lB admeasuring Ac.5-20 guntas, Sy.No..1 2 admeasuring Ac.5-'18 guntas, Sy.No.120 admeasuring Ac.5-04 guntas, total admeasuring 4c.37-22 guntas, situated at Bommalaramaram Village and lvlandal, yadadriBhongir District (Erstwhile Nalgonda District), in transferring the said file to the 2nd Respondent-Tribunal and entertaining and dismissing the same as illegal, arbitrary, without having jurisdiction and contrary to the amended provisions of ROR Act and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles^.14 and 300-A of constitution of lndia and set aside the said order and consequenfly direct the 2nd respondent to re-transfer to the file to the 4th respondent -RDo for its adjudication and disposal of the same on merits.

¶21

t.A. oF 2022

¶22

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 Respondent authorities not to change entries in the revenue records in respect of the land in Sy.No.203 admeasuring Ac.4-23 guntas, Sy.No.204, admeasuring Ac.4-26 guntas, Sy.No.217 admeasuring Ac.3-1g guntas, Sy.No.218 adrheasuring Ac.4-23 guntas, Sy.No.2i 9 admeasuring Ac.4-20 guntas, Sy.No.232lB admeasuring Ac.5-20 guntas, Sy.No.12 admeasuring Ac.518 guntas, Sy.No.'120 admeasuring Ac.5-04 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.37-22 guntas, situated at Bommalaramaram Village and Mandal, yadadri-Bhongir District (Erstwhile Nalgonda District), pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI.PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.19927 of 2022

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 2"d respondent-Tribunal in Case No.F2/ 1567 l2OT.^(AppealFile No.Dll46l2O17 on the file of RDO, Bhongir) dated 2.9.2021ⁱⁿ dismissing the appeal of the^{petitionersin respect of land in Sy.No.203} admeasuring Ac.4-23 guntas, Sy.No.204 admeasuring^{Ac.4-26 guntas,} Sy.No.217 admeasuring Ac.3-18^guntas, Sy.No.218^{admeasuring Ac.4-} 23 guntas,. Sy.No.219 admeasuring^{Ac.4-2Oguntas,Sy.No.232/B} admeasuring Ac.5-20 guntas, Sy.No.^{12 admeasuring Ac.5-18guntas,} Sy.No. 120 admeasuring Ac.5-04^guntas total^{admeasuringAc.37-22} guntas situated at Bommalaramaram^village and mandal,^Yadadri- Bhorrgir district (erstwhile Nalgonda district) as^{arbitraryand illegal.}

¶30

It is stated that the petitioners I and 2 are^children of^one Panduga Balamani. The said Balamani^{and petitioners3 and 4 are} daughters of late Kushangala Balram,^{who was the only son of} Kushangala Ramaiah. It is stated that^{one MannewaraRamulamma} was the original pattadar and^{petitioners maternal great grandfather} Kushangala Ramaiah was the^{protectedtenantof the subject land. It is} further stated that by the date^{of preparation of protected tenancy} register, petitioners^{grandfather died, leaving behind his son Balram,as} such, the provisional list,^{final list as well as 38-E ownership certificate} were issued in the name of^{KushangalaBalram under File}

¶31

No.641/ 1975 and the said Balram is in possession and enjoyment of the above said land till his death on 22.2.199A. By taking undue advantage of innocence and illiteracy of said Balram, the then patwari K.Narsimha Rao manipulated the revenue records without any basis by including his name in the provisional list of Protected Tenants in remarks column stating that the protected tenant left the possession.. it is further stated that the said Narsimha Rao fabricated the 3B-E ownership certificate issued in the name of Kushangala Balram by showing only an extent of Ac.5-18 guntas in Sy.No. 12 and admeasuring Ac.5-O4 guntas in Sy.No. 12O total admeasuring Ac.10-22 guntas though tlie said Balram is entitled for the entire subject land of Ac.3722 guntas.

¶32

In the year 2OO9, petitioners came to know about the said manipulation and tampering of revenue records by the then patwari Narsimha Rao in collusion with revenue officials, and therefore filed application before the Tahsildar, Bommalaramaram on 1S.1O.2OO9 and the Tahsildar issued notices on 2O.1O.2O09 to the sons of the then Patwari under proceedings No.B 12968 l2OO9 dated 20.l .2OOg, directing the parties to produce documentary proof to establish their rights over the subject property, but they failed to produce any documentary evidence. In spite of the same, the Tahsildar closed the file without passing any specific order. Therefore, petitioners filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional officer, Bhongir under Section 3gE and 40 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

¶33

¶34

t I

¶35

1950 seeking to declare the petitioners as legal heirs of late Kushangala Balram and to issue protected tenancy certificate in their favour in respect of the subject land. Consequent upon enactment of^provisions ol Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook^{Act,2O2O,the case} was transferred to the Special Tribunal and the^{Special Tribunal} dismissed the said appeal, directing the^{petitioners to approach Civil} Court regarding genuineness of 38-E Certificate.

¶36

The learned counsel for^{petitioners submittedthat the impugned} order passed by the lna respondent^{Tribunalis without jurisdictionas} the Special-Tribunal does not have^{any powerto entertain the matters} arisen under Tenancy Act.^{Further, the orderwas passedwithout} issuing any notice and without^{affordingany opportunity to the} petitioners. The learned counsel for^{petitionerssubmits that issuance} of ownership certificate under Section^{38-E and furtherproceedings} thereunder are governed by^{the provisions of Telangana State(Tenancy} and Agricultural lands)^{Act, 1950,whichis a self-containedcode, under} which an appeal remedy is^{provided underSection90 and revision} remedy is provided under Section^{91 of the said Act before the Collector} and State Government respectively.^{The 2nd respondent Tribunal} constituted under Section 16 of^{2O2OAct, is empoweredto adjudicate} only the matters relating to Record^{of Rights,mutation,succession etc'} The 4tJ1 respondent-Revenue^{Divisional Officer has erroneously} transferred the appeal^{to the 2"d respondentTribunal'}

¶37

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader and perused the record.

¶39

It is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the 2nd respondent Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners which arises under Tenancy Act.

¶40

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order passed by the 21d respondent-Tribunal in Case No.F2l1567 12021 (Appeal File No.D/14612017 on the file of RDO, Bhongir) 4,ated 2.9.2021. Further, the Appeal File No.D/ 14612017 is restored to the file of 4ft respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir. The 4ft respondent shall conduct enquiry in accordance with law by issuing notice to all the interested persons and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The enquiry shal1 be conducted by the Revenue Divisional officer without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

SD/. P,PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTBAR //TRUE COPY/' ca'

SECTION OFFICER

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

¶46

The Collector and District Magistrate, Special Tribunal, yadadri-Bhongir District. Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶47

The Collector and District Magistrate, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶48

The Revenue Divisional Officer Bhongir, Yadadri-Bh-ongir District.

¶49

The Tahsildar, Bommalaramaram Mahdal,^{yadadri-Bhongir} District.

¶50

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

¶51

One CC to SRI.PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA, Advocate tOpUCl

¶52

Two CD Copies

¶53

One spare copy

S.A

HIGH^COURT

DATED:25^tO4l2O22

ORDER

WP.No.19927 of²⁰²²

1EL-a
,? "i
e-
4J .s
do cA s ,l'
,?

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE W.P WTHOUT COSTS.

Panduga Balraju and 3 others v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panduga Balraju and 3 others 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

Mettupalli Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Akkala Shekar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Pothuganti Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana

Kundur Jithender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Ramtenki Anudeep Vs The State of Telangana

Kethireddy Sujanna Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others