Quashed

Chilagani Chandraiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Apr 2023WP/12341/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a writ petition challenging Land Transfer proceedings for violation of natural justice. The Court held orders were arbitrary due to lack of consideration of evidence and reasons, setting them aside and directing fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Orders set aside. Respondent No.5 directed to dispose of Case No. TWAI/60/2020 afresh within 4 months. Status quo maintained.

Chilagani Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 12341 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chilagani Chandraiah, S/o Hanumanthu, Aged About 71 years, Occ. RMP Doctor, R/o. H.No.39-75, Vidyanagar, Market Road. Mandamarri Mandal Adilabad Distrlct. T.S.

¶10

Boorla Veeresham, S/o Kanaiah, Age 46 years, Occ. Coolie. R/o. H. No 39218 Y apal area, Mandamarri lvlandal, Adilabad Drstrict. T.S.

¶11

..PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat Building. Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The District Collector, Adilabad District, Telangana State

¶15

3 The Addl Agent to Government and Project Officer I T. D A. Utnoor, Adilabad District T S

¶16

4q The Tahsildar, Mandamarn Mandal, Adilabad District. T S. The Spl. Dy. Collector (Tribal Welfare), Utnoor, Adilabad.

¶17

Smt. lndla Bhavani, Wo lndia Srinivas, Aged about 42 years, Occ .House wife R/o Narlapur Village and Mandal, Adilabad District, T.S.

¶18

7 lndla Srinivas, S/o Not known to the petrtioners, Aged about .49 Years, Occ^. not known to the petitioners, R/o Narlapur Village and lvlandal, Adilabad District, T.S.

¶19

..RESPONDENTS

¶20

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, or order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the proceeding in Appeal No. A4lLTRl1319l2020 Dated 2010412021 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and apart from principles of natural justice, consequently, set aside the same and restore the order Passed by the Sth Respondent Case No TWA116012020 dated^2110312020.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit faled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to drrect the 3rd and 4th Respondents not to dispossess the^petitioners from the schedule property without following due process of law pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶23

lA NO: I OF 2022

¶24

Between

¶25

Snrt lndla Bhavani, W/o lndia Srinivas, Aged about 42 years, Occ .House wife R/o Narlapur Village and Mandal, Adilabad District, T.S.

¶26

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.6

¶27

AND

¶28

1 Chrlagani Chandraiah, S/o Hanumanthu, Aged About 71 years, Occ RIVIP Doctor. R/o H.No 39-75, Vrdyanagar, Market Road, Mandamarri lVlandal Adilabad Dastrict. T.S.

¶29

2 Boorla Veeresham, S/o Kanaiah, Age 46 years, Occ. Coolie. R/o. H.No.39-218 Yapal area, Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District. T.S.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS

¶31

3 The Stale of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Trrbal Welfare Department. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶32

4 The District Collector, Adilabad Drstrict, Telangana State.

¶33

The Addl Agent to Government and Pro.lect Offlcer, l.T.D.A. Utnoor, Adilabad District, T.S.

¶34

The Tahsildar, Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District, T.S.

¶35

The Spl. Dy. Collector (Tribal Welfare), Utnoor, Adilabad

¶36

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 5

¶37

lndla Srinivas, S/o Not known to the petitioners, Aged about.49 Years, Occ . not known to the petitioners, R/o Narlapur Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. T,S.

¶38

...RESPONDENTiRESPONDENT No.7

¶39

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim order dt.'13105/2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W,P.No.'1234'l of 2021 as the writ petitioners herein do not have any valid grounds for the relief they sought and is devoid of merits.

¶40

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶41

Between:

¶42

'1 . The State of Telangana. Represented by its Principal Secretary. Tribal Welfare Department. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad

¶43

2 The District Collector, Adilabad District. Telangana State

¶44

The Addl Agent to Government and Project Officer, l.T D A Utnoor, Adilabad District, T.S.

¶45

The Tahsildar, Mandamarri tvlandal. Adalabad District. T S

¶46

The Spl. Dy. Collector (Tribal Welfare), Utnoor, Adilabad

¶47

.PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶48

AND

¶49

Chilagani Chandraiah, S/o Hanumanthu, Aged About 71 years. Occ. RMP Doctor, R/o. H.No.39-75, Vidyanagar, I/arket Road. Mandamarri Mandal Adilabad District, T.S.

¶50

Boorla Veeresham, S/o Kanaiah, Age 46 years, Occ Coo e. Rio. H.No.39218 Yapal area, Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District. T S

¶51

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶52

3 Smt. lndla Bhavani, Wo lndia Srinrvas, Aged about 42 years. Occ House wife R/o Narlapur Village and lvlandal, Adilabad District, T S.

¶53

lndla Srinivas, S/o Not known to the petitioners. Aged about .49 Years. Occ not known to the petitioners, R/o Narlapur Vrllage and lvlandal. Adilabad District, T.S.

¶54

,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶55

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 granted in l.A.No.1/202'l in W.P. No. 1234112021, dt 13t05t2021 .

¶56

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.DEVANATH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: GP FOR TRIBAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: SRI C.PRAVEEN FOR SRI M.R.S.SRINIVAS

¶57

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶58

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J,SREENIVAS RAO

¶59

W.P.No.1234l OF 2O2L

¶60

ORDER:

¶61

This u,rit pe tition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedinq in Appeal No.A4lLTR/ 1319 of 2020 dated 2O.O4.2O21 issued by respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 3O0-A of Constitution of India and apart from principles of natural^justice and consequently set aside the same and rcstore the ordcr passed by respondent No.5 in Case No.TWAI /60l2O20 datcd 2 1.O3.2023.

¶62

Heard Sri K. Dcvanath, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare appearing on behalf ol respondent Nos. I to 5, Sri C. Praveen, learned counsel representing Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶63

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of the land to an extent of Acs.0.26 guntas in Survey No.396/ 1 situated at Mandamarri Shivar and Mandal, erstwhile Adilabad District. Respondent No.5 initiated the proceedings invoking the provisions of Telangana Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation I of 1959 Amended Regulation I of 197O(herein after referred to as 'Regulations' for brevity) basing on the complaint of respondent No.6. Respondent No.5 after

¶64

)

¶65

considering the contentions of the respectivc parties thereirr dropped the proceedings uide Case No.TWAl 160 l2O2O by its order datcd 21 .O3.2O2O. Que stioning the said order re sporrdcnt No.6 filed appeal No.A4/LTR/ 1329 l2O2O before respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 without considering the contentions of the petitioners herein and without verifying documentary evidence on record, allowed the appeal, only basing on the submissions made by respondent No.6 that he has not sold subject property to the pctitioners though the petitioners are claiming the propcrty basing on the sale deeds dated 2a.O6.2OO6 and 18.O3.20l3executcd by respondent No.6. He further submits that respondent No.3 passed the impugned order without giving any reasons.

¶66

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondents submits that respondent No.3 after following the due procedure and after going through the records, passed the impugned order. The petitioners without availing the remedy of revision as available under Section 6 of Reguiations filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable under law.

¶67

Learned Assistant Government Pleader also reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for unofhcial respondents.

( {"

I t

Having considcred the rival submissions made by the respective partics and pcrused the material available on record. Admittcdly, the petitioncr is claiming rights over the subject property basing on the salc deeds dated 28.06.2006 and 18.03.2013. Respondent No.5 initiated the proceedings basing on the complaint of respondent No.6 invoking the provisions of Regulations and passed the order on 21.03.2020 dropping the proceedings. Questioning the said order respondent No.6 filed appeal before respondcnt No.3 and the appellate Court allowed the appeal on 2O.O4.2021. The impugned orders passed by respondent No.3 and the order passed by respondent No.S clearly reveals that the appellate authority as well as the primary authority without considering the contentions of the respective parties and also without verifying the documentary evidence on record passed the orders without assigning any reasons, especially the appellate authority/ respondent No.3 passed the order basing on the oral submissions made by respondent No.6, though the petitioners are claiming the rights over the property basing on the sale deeds as mentioned supra.

¶72

It is needless to mention here that the respondent Nos.3 and 5 are adjudicating the proceedings exercising the quasi judicial powers conferred under Regulations and ought to have considered the contentions of both parties, documentary evidence

¶73

¶74

¶75

on rccord^{and given reasons.} In the instant case neither the primary authority nor the appellate authority has considered t hc contentions of^{the parties nor given} any reasons in their orders and the same^{are liab1eto be declared} as contrary to law.

¶76

In view of the foregoing reasons, without going into the other aspects^{of the case,} both the^orderspassed by respondent Nos.3 and 5^{in Appeal No.A4ILTR/1329} l2O2O dated 2O.O4.2O2O and in^{case No.TWAl/60/2020 dated21.O3.2O2O} are^liable to be set aside.^{Accordingly, set} aside and respondent No.s is dirccted to dispose^{of the case No.TWAl/60/2020} afresh, after^giving notice and opportunity,^{includingpersonalhearingto the petitioners} as well as respondent^Nos.6 and 7 and^pass appropriate orders, in accordance^{with law, withina period of four (4) months fromthe} date of^{receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are entitled} to raise all^{the grounds which are avaiiableunder} law. Till^such time both^{the partiesare directed} to^{maintainStafus-Quo in} respect^{of subject} Property.

¶77

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ^petition, shall stand closed.

¶78

I I

¶79

SDi.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶80

To The Pnncioal secretary,^{Tribal Welfare Department,Secretariat Building'} Hvderabad. State^{of Telanqana.} 2 i6J -OGtiiCt cottector. Adila-bad Drstrict, Telang-ana State ^ 3 +i.r! Xili^{as*t1o-cbuurnr"ntind Pioject dfficer' l T D A Utnoor'Adilabad} District,^T.S

¶81

¶82

The Tahsildar. Mandamarri lt/landal Adilabad District. T S. 5. The Spl. Dy Collector (Trrbal Welfare), Utnoor. Adilabad. 6. One CC to SRI K.DEVANATH Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR TRIBAL WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 8I One Two CC CD Copiesto SRI M.R S SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] PSK. BS

Bsg.

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10412023

\ t

ORDER

WP.No.12341 of 2021

1E
'
i:a
.$
s*
<br><j.
) !-t1 t' :./

¶90

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶91

crv.. $&K

Chilagani Chandraiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chilagani Chandraiah 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

Jadav Premdas Vs The District Collector

Maskala Laxman Vs State of Telangana

Avula Somaiah Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Serene Heights Vs Union of India

Koppula Ramachander Rao Vs State of Telangana

Mohd Shabbeer Hussaian Vs The State of Telangana