Allowed

Vitta Satyanarayana Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Telangana HC16 Dec 2023WP/21874/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the arbitary order passed by the Special Tribunal under the Telangana State Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020. The order was remanded as it was passed mechanically without an inquiry or opportunity of hearing to the parties, violating natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Special Tribunal dated 24.06.2021 set aside; matter remanded to reconsider appeal with notice and opportunity of hearing within 3 months.

Vitta Satyanarayana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 5… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21874 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vitta Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Vitta Yella Reddy, Aged 53 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ri./o Chinna Mandadi Village, Peddamandadi ltllandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Special Tribunal, Under Telangana State Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, Rep. by the District Collector, Wanaparthy.

¶13

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy Division, Wanaparthy.

¶14

4 The Tahsildar, Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District, Gadde Krishnaiah, S/o Laxmaiah, Aged 63 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rt/o Chinna Mandadi Village, Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶15

6 V.Ravi Kumar Reddy, S/o B.Gopal Reddy, Aged 31 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, Rl/o Chinna Mandadi Village, Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records^pertaining to and in relation to the order in order in File No.D/Spl. Tribunal/Peddamandad i/Ca se No.24512021 Old RDO File No.D/520/2016,2410612021,^passed by the 2nd Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14,21 and 300A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same.

¶18

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sLrpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 not to regisler any Conveyance Deed executed by the Respondents No.5 and 6 in respect of land an extent of Ac.3-24 gts., in Sy.No.43/AA, situated at Chinnamandadi Village, Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District, during^pendency of the Writ Petition Othenruise, the Petitioners will be^put to irreparable loss and injury.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Responclents No.1to4 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

Counsel for Respondents No.5&6 : SRI MALAYALA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.21874 OF 2021

¶26

ORDER: (ORAL)

¶27

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare action of respondent No.2 in passing order in File No.D/Spl.TribunaVPeddamandadi/Case No.245 12021 (Old RDO File No.D/520/2016) dated 24.06.2021 as being arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural^justice.

¶28

It is submitted that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.3-24 guntas in Survey No.43lAA siruated at Chinnamandadi Village, Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District, having inherited the same from his ancestors along with other agricultural lands in the same village. Petitioner was issued pattadar passbook in respect ol the subject land and his name was recorded in the revenue records as pattadars.

¶29

While so, when petitioner enquired and obtained Pahani in 2016, he noticed that his name was was deleted from the pattadar

¶30

¶31

¶32

colurnn and names of respondent Nos.4 and 5 were recorded in respect of the ;ubject land. Immediately knowing about illegal mutation, petitioner filed application before respondent No.4 requesting him to issue certif,red copy of mutation proceedings. Respondent Nc.4 has refused to issue the same. Petitioner has submitted application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and obtained entire proceedings in respect of the ilJegal mutation made in favour ol'respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the revenue records.

¶33

[t is subrnitted that after perusal of records, petitioner has come to know that respondent No.4 has mutated the name of respondent No 5 as pattadar in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.2-20 guntas in Survey No.43iAA and Acs.2-33 guntas in the name of responrlent No.6 in respect of Survey No.43lAA of Chinnamandadi Village. It further disclosed that name of respondent Nr,.5 was mutated pursuant to the Section 38-E Certificate dated 03.09.19'75 in File No.A3l22711975. It is submitted that the two proceedings were issued by respondent No.4 without issuing notice to the petitioner, which is contrary to the provisions ofthe Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar

¶34

¶35

Passbooks Act, 1971, (for short 'the Act, 1971') and in violation ol principles of natural justice.

¶36

It is stated that petitioner has filed an Appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5), 5(5B) of the Act, 1971. During the pendency ofthe appeal the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,,2020, (for short'the Act,2020') came into force and Special Tribunals were constituted in terms of the Section 16(1) olthe Act,2020. An order dated 02.02.202i was passed by the Special Tribunal. It is submitted that pursuant to the order passed in W.P. (PIL) No.20 of 2021 dated 18.03.2021, petitioner has made a representation to respondent No.2 - Special Tribunal to reopen his case. The case was re-opened. However, impugned order 24.06.202[ was passed without considering the written arguments submitted by the petitioner.

¶37

It is submitted that order passed by the Special Tribunal is contrary to the Judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (2) ALD

¶38

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were entered by respondent No.4 in

¶39

¶40

respect of the subject land, by deleting the names of the petitioner without issuing notice to the petitioner. Impugned order was passed by respondent No.2 in a mechanical manner and without conducting any enquiry.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that land in Survey Nos.40, 4l and 43 to an extent of Acs.0-06 guntas, Acs.14-l I guntas and Acs. 16-11 guntas respectively belongs to Mrs. Itta Kistamrna Wo Mr. Itta Yellaiah. One Harijan Yellodu @^{Jollodu wai .r protected tenantand his legal heirs had been} granted Sectic,n 38-E Certificate by the Additional Revenue Divisional Olf ccr, Land Ceiling, Gadwal. At the sanre time, one Lakshmaiah \'as a protected tenant to the extent of Acs.7-00 guntas in Survey'No.4l and Acs.8-03 guntas in Survey No.43 of the Chinnamandadi Village. As protected tenant died, Section 38-E certificate was issued in favour of the legal heirs i.e., Mr. Venkatanra and Mr. Krishnaiah (respondent No.5 herein). Alter granting 38-E certifrcate, the certificate holders Mr. Edigi Venkatanna and Mr. Edigi Krishnaiah, sold land admeasuring Acs.7-00 guntas in Survey No.41 in favour of Mrs. J. Chandamma

,! ,/'

)

Wo Bucha Reddy, matemal grandmother of the petitioner, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.293 of 1981 dated 27.01.1981.

¶46

It is submitted that the death of Mrs. J. Chandamma, land has been mutated in the name of the petitioner, though Mrs. Vitta Buchamma Wio Yella Reddy, mother of the petitioner was alive. However, Section 38-E certificate holders i.e., legal heirs ol Harijan Yellagu also sold to an extent of Acs.7-l I guntas in Survey No.4l, Ac.0-06 guntas in Survey No.40 to Mr. Pulluru Narayana Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy by virrue ol registered document No.295 of 1981 dated 27.01.1981. Apart from Section 38-E certitrcate holders, Mr. Venkatanna and respondent No.5 and legal heirs of Mr. Harijan Yelladu^jointly sold an extent of Acs.520 guntas in Survey No.43 favour of Mr. Ediga Ananthaiah, Mr Shankaraiah and Mr. Kurmaiah vide registered sale deed bearing document No.294 of 1981 dated 27.01.1981. A11 the above sale deeds were implemented in the revenue records by way of mutatlon.

-^*-i

It is submitted that respondent No.5 had been left with Acs.5-13 guntas in Survey No.43 of Chinnamandadi Village and there is no land remaining in Survey No.4l. Out of the land covered by Se<;tion 38-E certificate, respondent No.5 had been in possession of the land admeasuring Acs.5- 13 guntas in Survey No.43. He sold to an extent of Acs.2-33 guntas in favour of Mr. Vitta Ravi Kurnar Reddy (respondent No.6 herein) under registered sale deed bearing document No. 11015 of 20i5 dated 26.10.2015 and he is still in possession of Acs.2-20 guntas. It is submitted by iearned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 5 that procedure as contemplated under law was followed and mutation proceedings lr'ere issued under the Act, 2020, in f'avour of respondent No:;.5 and 6.

¶51

i 0. Heard learned counsel lbr the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learnr:d counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, and perused the material on record.

¶52

¶53

I I

¶54

ll. As seen from the initial order dated 02.02.2021 and subsequent order dated 24.06.2021, it is clear that Special Tribunal - Respondent No.2 has passed impugned order mechanicaily and without application of mind. There are no reasons recorded and the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural^justice. The operative portion of the order dated24.06.2021 is prototype of operative portion of the order dated 02.02.2021 with one or two minor changes. On the face of the record, the impugned order is unsustainable. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, tbr the sole reason of being passed in violation of principles ol natural^justice.

¶55

In view olthe above, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned rejection order of respondent No.2 dated24.06.2021 and the matter is remanded to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 shall reconsider the appeal in File No.DiSpl.TribunallPeddamandadi/Case No.24512021, by issuing notice to all concerned/interested persons, by giving opportunity of hearing to alI parties, and pass orders, by recording reasons, within a period of three (3) months from the

¶56

¶57

I I

¶58

date ofreceipt ola copy of this order. There shall be no order as to

¶59

costs.

¶60

As a scquel thereto, miscellaneous applications,

¶61

if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. No order as to

¶62

costs.

¶63

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL //rRUE coPYil ASSISTANTEreISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal :lecretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶68

The Special Tribunal, Under Telangana State Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, Rep by the Diskict Collector, Wanaparthy. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy Division, Wanaparthy. 4. The Tahsildar, Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District, 5. One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate. IOPUCI 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU1l 7. One CC to SRI MALAYALA RAIVAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate. IOPUC] B. Two CD Copies.

BSK GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:16112120,23

ORDER

'1 r- STAre:
l
4,
,I 4 P
oo [ 2 rEB 202[ .5(;<br>\Y,+ t
\ Di.ipAic

¶74

WP.No.21874 of 2021