Allowed

Dasari Venkataiah and 3 others v. The State of Telangana and 10 others

Telangana HC11 Dec 2023WP/28659/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana set aside a revenue order passed without notice regarding an implead application. It directed transfer of the pending revision petition to the Special Tribunal constituted under the 2020 Act, noting the original respondent lacked jurisdiction post-enactment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.10.2019 set aside for violation of natural justice; matter transferred to Special Tribunal for adjudication within 3 months.

Dasari Venkataiah and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28659 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . Dasari Venkataiah, S/o, Mallaiah, Aged about 40^years, Occ.^Agriculture,

¶9

Dasari Thirupathaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 42^years, Occ.^Agriculture,

¶10

Dasari Krishnaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about^{35 years, Occ. Agriculture}

¶11

Dasari Chandraiah, S/o. Shanthaiah, Aged about 32^years, Occ.^Agriculture All are R/o. Polike Pahad Vf. Gopalpet Mandal, Wanaparthy^District.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

2 The Joint Collector, Wanaparthy Dlstrict.

¶16

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy.

¶17

¶18

The Thasildar, Gopalpet Manda[, Wanaparthy District.

¶19

Mohd. Jahngeer, S/o. Mohd. Abbas,.Aged 55^{years,Occ. Labour, R/o. H.No.} 7-1-15, Geefa Hotel Road, Near Premnagar Road,^{Mahaboobnagar Town and} District.

¶20

P. Prabhakar Rao, S/o. P. Rajashekar Rao, Aged^{about60 years, R/o. H.No.} 8-3-167/l(163/G1, Savera Residence, Hyderabad.

¶21

P. Muralidhar Rao, S/o. P. Rajashekar^{Rao, Aged about58 years, Occ.} Lecturer, R/o. H.No.2-9-279, Sneha Nagar, Hanumakoda.

¶22

P.Kanya Kumar, S/o. P.Raiashekar^Rao, Age!^{about 60 years' Occ.} Contractor, R/o. H.No. 77, Madhunagar, Hyderabad.

¶23

P.Narashimha Rao, S/o. P.Rajashekar,^{Aged about 54 years, Occ. Employee,} R/o. H. No. 8-3-167/K'163/G1, Savera Residence,^Hyderabad.

¶24

P.Venkateshwar, S/o. P.Rajeshwar^{Rao, Aged about 54 years,Occ.} Employee,

¶25

11.Vanajamma, D/o. Venkateshwar Rao, Aged^{about 30 years, R/o. H.No.4/1,} Polikirpahad Village, Gopalpet Mandal, Wanaparthy^District. (Respondents 6 to^'1'1 are not necessary^parties)

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more pa(icularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for records in the impugned proceedings No. D116712016, dated 31-10-2019, on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as highly illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice under Article 14.21 and 300 A of Constitution of lndia.

¶28

lA NO:^'l OF 2019

¶29

Petition under section 1 s l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings No. D1t67 12o16, dated 3110-2019 of the respondent No.2 herein and alr consequentiar proceedings thereupon, pending disposal of the writ peiition.

¶30

lA NO: I OF 2O23

¶31

Between:

¶32

Mohd. Jahangeer, s/o.Late Abbas, Aged about 59 years, occ. Labour, R/o. H.No. 7- 1-15' ceeta Hoter Road, Near prdm ttagir ndaq rilaniu"ooirgri'i*r'"'""rio District.

¶33

....VACATE STAY PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO,s

¶34

AND

¶35

I[^fl1tg. :!-rgqryTg,..Rep, Fy .its.^{principat Secretary,Revenue} uepartment, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad

¶36

2 The Joint Collector, Wanaparthy District. J The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy. 4 The Thasildar, Gopalpet Mandal, Wanaparthy District. 5 about M vears. R/o H No !j.'-ia?l*fl#i Sii":; [sl?o'i,"131,11?rlfl:i

¶37

P.^Muralidhar Rao, S/o. P. Ra.jashekar Rao, Aged about 62 years, R/o. H.No. 2-9-279, Sneha Nagar, Hanuniakoda.

¶38

7 lKqnyq^{Kumar, S/o. P.Rajashekar} Rao, Aged about 60 years, R/o. H.No.77, Madhu Nagar, Hyderabad.'

¶39

P.Narashimha Rao, S/o. P.Raiashekar, Aged about 58 years, R/o. H. No. 8-3167lKl163lG1 , Savera Residence, Hyderabad.

¶40

P.Venkateshwar, S/o. P.Rajeshwar Rao, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Employee,

¶41

10.Vanajamma, D/o. P. Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about 34 years, R/o. H.No.

¶42

4i^'l, Polikepahad, Gopalpet Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶43

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶44

1 1. Dasari Venkataiah, Sio. Mallaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶45

Dasari Thirupathaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶46

'13. Dasari Krishnaiah, Slo. M$ian, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculture

¶47

Dasari Chandraiah, S/o. Malilah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculture All are R/o. Polike Pahad Vt Mandal, Wanaparthy District. fualOet

¶48

. ...RESPONOENTS/PETITIONERS t

¶49

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 order passed in l.A.No.1 of 2019 in WP.No. 28659 of 2019 dated 26.12.2019 and dismiss the WP No.28659 of 2019 with cost.

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J. P. SRIKANTH

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.^'l to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI K.R. SRIKANTH

¶53

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶54

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶55

U/RIT PETITION No.28659 of 2OL9

¶56

ORDER

¶57

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶58

" to issue a wit order or direction more particularlg one in tte nature of Writ of Certtorai calling for records in tte impugned proceedings No.Dl/ 67/ 2016, dated 31.1O.2O19, on the file of th-e respondenb No.2 and quash tLe same as highlg illegal, arStrary, uiolation of princtples of natural^justice under Article 14, 21 and 3OO-A of Co nstitutio n of I ndia. "

¶59

Heard Sri J.P.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.¹ to⁴ and Sri K.R.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing^on behalf of respondent No.5. l,earned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners^a-re not seeking any relief against respondent Nos.6 to^{11 and} they are not necessary parties for adjudication^{of this} writ petition.

¶60

3, With the consent of learned coBnsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Governrnent^Pleader and learned counsel for respondent^{No.S, the writ} petition is disposed of at the^{stageof admission.}

¶61

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Acs.6.25 guntas in Sy.No.4gg/1 and Acs.2.OO guntas in Sy.No.aggl2 situated at Polikepahad Village, Gopalpet Manda,l, Wanaparthy District, and the sarrre was purchased from Sri.Y.Dayakar Reddy arld Sri y.Krishna Reddy, through registered sa-le deeds on 16.09.2013 and 16.09.2013 respectively, and since then, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He further submits that respondent AIo.5 filed revlslon petition vide No.DI /62 /2016 before respondent No.2 on Oa.OZ.2O14 questioning the validation certificate dated 23. 04. I 9g4 issued bv the Tahsildar, Nagarkurnool, 1n favour of respondent No.5 in respect of land to an extent of Acs.g_22 guntas in Sy.Nos.4gg/ 1 and 4gg/2. He further submits that in the said revision petition, the petitioners have hled implead petition on (16.0Z.2Ol9 seeking permission to implead them as respondent Nos.lO to 13 as they are proper and necessary

¶63

-7,

¶64

parties. However, respondent No.2^without considering the same and without^giving aly^notice and opportunity to the petitioners has^passed * impugned order on 31.10.2019 and the same is clear violation of the principals of natural^justice.

¶65

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent^No.S contended that the petitioners are not having^any right interest over the subject property and^{they are} not entitled to the relief sought in the writ^petition.

¶66

Having considered the rival submissions^made by the respective parties, and after^perusal of^the material available on record, which^{clearlyreveals} that, the petitioners have frled implead^{petition before} respondent No.2 in revision petition i.e.,^file No.Dl/67 /2016 on 06.O7.2019 seeking^{permission to} implead them as party respondent^{Nos. 10 to 13 and} respondent No.2 Office received the^{said petition.} During the course of hearing,^{learnedcounsel for the} petitioners produced the certified copy^{of the aflidavit} filed along with the said^{petitionissued by respondent} No.2 office on 14.09.2023.^{It appears frorn the record}

¶67

, C

¶68

¶69

that, respondent No.2 even before deciding the said implead petition passed the impugned order dated 31.1O.2O19 and the same is clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶70

For the foregoing reasons, without going into the merits of the case whether they are necessary^parties to adjudicate the revision petition. The impugned order dated 31.1O.2O19 passed by respondent^{No.2 is} set aside ,rr? the matter is required^for reconsideration afresh.

¶71

¶72

It is brought to the notice of this^{Court that} during the pendency of this writ^{petition the State of} Telangana, while repealing the Pattadar^{Pass Books} Act,L97 I introduced new Act', narnely, Record^of Rights under the Telangana Rights in Land^and Pattadar Pass Books Act,2O2O^{(Telangana Act} 9^of 2O2Ol and the same is came into w.e.f.^29.IO.2O2O (for short "the Act"). As per the Act and the rules made there under constituted Special Tribunals^for adjr.rdication of all pending cases and^respondent No.2 is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate^this

¶73

¶74

matter and the Special Tribunal is only having jurisdiction to hear the revision petition frled by respondent No.5.

¶75

In view of the sarne, the District Collector, Wanaparthy, Wanaparthy District, is directed to transfer the matter to the Special Tribunal for adjudication of above said revision petition File No.Dl/67/2016 and further the Special Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunit5r to all the parties within a period of three (O3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶76

With the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. No costs.

¶77

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶78

stand closed.

¶79

SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE GOPY// (-M''-/ SECTION OFFICER

¶80

To,

¶81

The District Collector, Wanaparthy, Wanaparthy Dishict.

¶82

One CC to SRI J. P. SRIKANTH, Advocate TOPUCI

¶83

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

¶84

one CC to SRt K.R sRtKANrf naro""t" topult

¶85

Two CD Copies

MP LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1111212023

l.r.,
t,:
2 ! iji[ il;;
..',,.
oftoen

¶91

WP.No.28659 of 2019

¶92

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶93

¶94

'/2

Dasari Venkataiah and 3 others v. The State of Telangana and 10 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Venkataiah and 3 others v. The State of Telangana and 10 others

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

Kasoju Madhu Sudhana CHARY,CHANDUBHATLA[POSTANDV],MHBBNGR,AND3 Vs the District Collector, R. R. Dist., Lakdikapool,Hyd., and 5OT

Nandala Srinivas Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Chandra kumar H.Shah Vs K.Chandrakala

Bahubalendruni Ramamurthy Vs Government of Ap., rep.by the Principal Secretary

Syeda Habeeb W/o Syed Kaleemullah Hussain Vs State of Telangana

Smt.Mahendramnna, Vs The Government