Dismissed

Mothukuri Asherwadam, Khammam Dist v. Settlement Officer and R.D.O., Khammam Dist and 7 Ot

Telangana HC16 Dec 2023WA/1656/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, while disposing of Writ Appeal No.1656 of 2012 filing against an order in WP No.19704 of 2011, observed that an aggrieved party always has a remedy of appeal when a rejection order is not served, and granted the appellant liberty to pursue available remedies. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was disposed of. The appellant is at liberty to pursue available remedies as per law.

Mothukuri Asherwadam, Khammam Dist Vs Settlement Officer… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^33e3 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

SATURDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO.1656 OF 2012

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause^'15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against the order dated

¶8

16.11.2012 in WP.No. 19704 ot 2O11 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mothukuri Asherwadam, S/o. Late Kanthaiah, aged 61^years,Rl/o. Turubaka^village, Dummugudem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶11

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.3

¶12

AND

¶13

The Settlement Officer, & Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District-

¶14

The Tahsildar, Dummagudem [/andal, Khammam^District.

¶15

....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Kondru Venkateswarlu, S/o. Late Subbaiah, aged^{36 years, Fyo.H.No-240,} Turubaka village, Dummugudem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶17

Smt.Kondru Narsamma, W/o. Late Papa Rao, aged 51^{years, Rl/o. H.No.239,} Turubaka village, Dummugudem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶18

Kilimi Sambi Reddy, S/o. Late Dasthagiri^{Reddy,aged 56 years,Rl/o.H.No.1-} 98, Turubaka village, Dummugudem Mandal, Khammam^District.

¶19

Earla Muthaiah, S/o. Late Narsaiah, aged^{about 60 years, Rl/o. H.No.1-97,} Turubaka village, Dummugudem I/andal, Khammam District.

¶20

Gampa Laxmana Bapu, S/o. Late Gangaiah,^{aged 46 years,Rl/o. H.No.1-96'} Turubaka village, Dummugudem Mandal,^{Khammam District.}

¶21

Mirlyala Narsaiah, S/o. Late Rangarah, aged^{60 years Rl/o-No.'1-95,Turubaka} village, Dummugudem Mandal, Khammam^District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS/VI/RIT PETIT]ONERS

¶23

l.A. NO: 1OF 2012(WAMP. NO: 3630 OF 20121

¶24

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 suspend the operation of the Order in W.P.No.'1970412011, dated 16-1 1-2012 in the interest of^justice pending the above writ appeal.

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 8: SRI P. V. RAMANA

¶28

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶29

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE THE^{CHIEF JUSTICEALOK ARADHE} AND THE HON'BLE^{SHRI JUSTICEANILKUMAR WKANTI}

¶32

WRITAPPEAL No.1656 of 2OL2

¶33

JUDGMENT: Qter^{the Hon'bleSh.i JusticeAnil Kumar Jukantt)}

¶34

This intra court appeal is^{filed questioning the} order of the^{learnedSingle Judge dated 16.ll.2Ol2} passed in W.P.No.l97O4^{of 2O11.}

¶35

Heard Mr.^{V. RamakrishnaReddy,learned} counsel for the^{appellant,learned Government} Pleader for Revenue.^{Mr. P.V. Ramana, learned} counsel for respondent^{Nos.3 to 8.}

¶36

The brief^{facts of the case are:}

¶37

The appellant hled an application^{before the} Settlement Officer^{and Revenue Divisional Ofhcer,} Bhadrachalam,^{Kharnmam District (hereinafter} referred to as^{'RDO), 1"' respondent, in the year} 1978 for grant of ryotwari Patta^{lnrespect of}

¶38

CJ&JAK,J \' .\ \o 1656 oa2Ol2

¶39

¶40

Acs.3.22^{cents of land inSurvey No.19/2 of} Turubaka^{Village,DummugudemMandal,} Khammam^{District, under the AndhraPradesh} (Scheduled^{Areas RyotwariSettlement)} Regulations,^{I97O (for short, 'the Regulations').} The^{said application was} disallowed by the 1", respondent^{on 30.12.1978}

¶41

3.1 In the year 2OlO, the appellant submitted another application for grant of ryotwari patta der the same Regulations in respect of Ac.l.29 ents of land of the same village. The RDO called from the Tahsildar and by order dated O.I2.2O1O allowed the claim of the appellant in spect of Ac.O.75 cents in Survey No.l9/2. In the t petition, the respondents have challenged the er dated IO.l2.2OlO passed by the RDO on two nds, that the RDO is not conferred with the

¶42

CJ & JAK, J w A No.1656 of mt2

¶43

¶44

power to review^{his own order and the application} was filed^{after 32 years. l'earnedSingleJudge in} the order^{has recordeda frnding that the record did} not disclose the^{fact that theorder dated} 30.l2.P7a was^{served upon theappellant'} Learned Single^{Judge allowed the writ petitionby} order dated^{16.11-2012.The present Writ Appeal} is filed against^{the order of the learnedSingle} Judge.

¶45

Learned^{counsel for theappellanthas} submitted that^{the respondents have no locus to} challenge the^{order dated tO'12'2OlO,as they are} in no way affected^{and that the writ petitionis in} the nature of Public^{Interest Litigation' Itis} submitted that if^{only a copy of the order dated} 30.12-1978^{was served upon the appellant,he} would^{have availed the remediesas per law' It is}

¶46

(:r &.lAli ., W.A.No.I656 oI2012

¶47

¶48

further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter or directed to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as per law.

¶49

It is submitted that the learned Single Judge

¶50

should have directed for a counter affidavit to be frled by the offrcial respondents and should not have disposed of the matter at the admission stage. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge, having found that the order dated 30.12.1978 was not served on the appellant or his father, should not have considered the factor of delay, non service of the order copy being fatal. Learned Single Judge ought to have considered the submission that the land is in occupation of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant be

¶51

permitted to file an appeal as per law, as the order dated 30.12.1978 was not served.

¶52

CJ & JAK, J W A No.1656 of 20 l2

I \

i I

the 6. Learned counsel appearing for

¶57

respondents submitted that the RDO has no power to entertain a review application after 32 years and that the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the RDO has no such power of review. It is also contended that the RDO has passed the order on 10.12.2O7O behind the back of the respondents, without they being made as parties. That the order of the learned Single Judge is valid and that no grounds have been made out by the appellant for interference.

¶58

Heard both the counsels, perused the record. Learned Single Judge in his order has recorded a finding that the order dated 30.12.1978 was not served upon the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has made a submission that the order of rejection dated 30.12.1978 was not served

¶59

¶60

I I

¶61

CJ & JA(, J w.A.No- 1656 ol20l2

¶62

and the appellant would pursue the matter by making an application before the appellate authority as per law. This Court is of the view that an aggrieved party always has a remedSz of appeal before the appropriate authority provided as per law when a rejection order is not served. The appellant is at liberty to pursue the remedies available to him in accordance with law.

¶63

8 With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.

¶64

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

¶65

costs.

¶66

To,

¶67

l- SD/- K. SHYLESHI DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII sEcTtoN oFFtcER

¶68

, [|:#.".f318#",oo,"u. & Revenue Divisionat officer, Bhadrachalam,

¶69

The Tahsildar, Dummagudem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶70

One CC to SRt V RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

Two CCs to Gp for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶72

One CC to SRI p. V. RAIMANA, Advocate tOpUCl

¶73

Two CD Copies

I,4f^g

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611212023

ATE OF
C)
lNb )::
E $tt ,E
11
o
() c:-'
.(r
rlf
x DFr"'
JUDGMENT

¶78

WA.No.1656 of 2012

¶79

6't)
o ffi

¶80

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

Mothukuri Asherwadam, Khammam Dist v. Settlement Officer and R.D.O., Khammam Dist and 7 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mothukuri Asherwadam, Khammam Dist v. Settlement Officer and R.D.O., Khammam Dist and 7 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Udayabhasker, Died per LRs Vs the M.D., Ap State Handlooms Coop.Society Ltd, and Another

K.v.Kishan Rao Vs The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Registrar

V.Mallesham Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited Vs The State of Telangana

G.Jalandhar, Vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh High Court Buildings

Chief Mgr, Sbh, Msme Br, Warangal Vs Tahsildar, Warangal Dist and 2 Others