Allowed

Smt. K. Bala Kistamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Feb 2022WP/5023/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition and miscellaneous petition, the High Court held that Special Tribunals under the 2020 Land Rights Act lack jurisdiction to hear appeals under the 1950 Tenancy Act. The Court directed the Additional Collector to dispose of the pending Tenancy Appeal on its merits within eight weeks. Odd-pagination scribbles appeared at the end.

What did the court decide?

The respondent No.2 (Additional Collector) is directed to dispose of the appeal dated 19.01.2022 on its merits and strictly in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the o

Smt. K. Bala Kistamma Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY^{OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK^REDOY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5023 OF 2022

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Smt. K. Bala Kistamma, W/o. Venkataiah, D/o.^{LateKaurampeta Chennaiah, Aged} about 60 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Sheripally-B^{Village, Boothpur Mandal,} ltila ha b u b na ga r District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

2 The Additional Collector (Revenue), Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar. e The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar Division, Mahabubnagar District 4( The Thasildar, Boothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. K. Kashanna, S/o. Kaurampeta Chennaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Sheripally-B Village, Boothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶12

6 K. Venkataiah, S/o. K. Chennaiah, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o, Sheripally-B Village, Boothpur Mandal, Ivlahabubnagar District.

¶13

7 K Ramulu, S/o, K. Chennaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o, Sheripally-B Village, Boothpur [,4andal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶14

8 K. Laxmaiah, S/o. K. Chennaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rio. Sheripally-B Village, Boothpur Mandal, IVahabubnagar District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 rssue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in nol taking steps to expedite the hearing of pending Tenancy Appeat dated 1gtoi l2o22 as filed by the petitioner U/sec. 90 of relangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 challenging the 38-E certificate granted by 3rd respondent in file No. K./576/2009, dated 02.03.2010 in respect of the land in sy.2s112, admeasuring Ac.3o-00 and 2s1111, admeasuring Ac.11-i3 guntas total admeasuring Ac.41 .iS guntas, at Boothpur Village and Mandar, Mahabubnagar District as granted by the 3rd respondent onry in favour of sons of rate chennaiah, by referring{o the Memo issued by the ccLA, Hyderabad dated 07/09r2o20, as iilegar, unrawfur, contrary to raw and consequenfly direct the 2nd respondent to expedite the disposal of above Tenancy Appeal by giving notice to a[ concerned without reference to the above memo issued by CCLA.

¶17

IANO:1O F 2022

¶18

¶19

Petition under section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the 4th respondent^not to^{implement the 38-E certificatein file No. K/576/2009,} dated 0210312010 only in^{the name of sons of Late Kaurampetachennaiahin} respect of the land in^{sy. 251t2, admeasuringAc.30-00 and 251111, admeasuring} Ac.11-l3guntastotaladmeasuringAc.4l-l3guntas,atBoothpurVillageand Mandal, Mahabubnagar^{Districtas sons of Late Chennaiah by gettingimplement} 38-E in their favour^{intending to alienatethe land to third party, pending disposal of} main Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl. J KONDA REDDY}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶22

Counsel forthe^{Respondent Nos. 5 to 8: NONEAPPEARED}

¶23

The Gourt made the^{following:ORDER}

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.5O23 of2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel ror the petitioner and rearned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4. with their consent, the writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶28

Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2 in disposing the appeal dated 19.o1.2022 filed by the petitioner under section 9o of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

The iearned counsel for the petitioner has stated that based on the circular issued by the chief commissioner of Land Administration, dated 07.09.2O20 uide CCLAs Ref. No. Assn.t(1)/ 46312O2O, the revenue authorities are not taking up the matter for disposal even though they do not pertain to the provisions under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the said action is not proper on the part o[ the ar-rthorities.

¶30

Having regard to the fact thar the Special Tribunals are exclusively constituted under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,2O2O,lor the purpose of deciding al1 the pending matters r.rnder the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.2, under the provisions of The Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, has to be decided on its own merits, as the Special Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The revenue authorities cannot abdicate the duties cast upon them under the Act and fail to pass any orders in the matters pertaining to the subjects other than the Telangana Rights in Land and

¶31

¶32

Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 i.e., matters emanating under the provisions of Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, thc Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 19S5, The Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, Telangana Agriculture Land (conversion for Non-agriculture purpose) Act, 2006, the Telangana NonAgrictrltural Lands Assessment Act etc. The word,s',land mafters,, used in the Memo issued by the chief commissioner of Land Administration, dated 07.09.2020, can only be construed to be in relation to the matters pertaining to the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, 1971, but not with regard to the matters arising under various other revenue enactments.

¶33

In view of the above, since the appeal fi1ed by the petitioner is under the provisions of The Telarrgana Tenancy and Agriculturar Lands Act, 1950, respondent No.2 herein is directed to dispose of the appeal dated 19.01.2022 fi,led by the petitioner, on its merits and strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

6 With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

The Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha1l stand closed

¶36

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

SD/- P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASslsrANT REGfiiTRAR //TRUE coPY// sEcTloN OHFICER

¶38

To, sEcTloN OHFICER '1' The Principar secretary, Revenue Department, state of rerangana, secretariat, Hyderabad

¶39

2 The Additionar coilector (Relg1ue), Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar.

¶40

The Revenue Divisional Officei, Mahabubnagar Division, V"nrUrLn"g* District.

¶41

The Thasildar, Boothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶42

One CC to SRt. J KONDAfEDDy, Advocate. tOpUCl

¶43

Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE, High Court for t'he State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶44

Two CD Copies.

¶45

One Spare Copy.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0110212022

) ?"
0I tEB 202
i
'"r-
l)*".r... ,i{6

¶51

ORDER

¶52

WP.No. 5023 of 2022

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

I
W)----

Smt. K. Bala Kistamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Bala Kistamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Putta Raghava Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Kutumbaka Phani and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Bathini Yadagiri and another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Kammari Manemma Vs The State of Telangana

Viswanatham Vs The State of Telangana

Palugumidi Satyanarayana and another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others