Remanded

Chittaympally Anja Goud v. The State of Tenlangana and 5 others

Telangana HC12 Dec 2023WP/32705/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court held that the Special Tribunal violated principles of natural justice by recording agricultural land as 'Poramboku-Sarkari' without hearing the petitioner. The writ is allowed, and the matter is remanded to rehear the case after providing a hearing.

What did the court decide?

IT . . The writ petition is allowed for the reason the impugned order being passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is set side The matter is remanded back to the Special Tri

Chittaympally Anja Goud Vs The State of Tenlangana and 5… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 32705 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chittaympally Anja Goud, S/o Laxmagoud, aged about 85 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o [Vansanaplly Village, Kondapur lt4andal, Presently residing at I/aithphkhanguda, Yrllsnkonda Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad, Telangana State

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

a The Special Tribunal, Rep. by the District Collector, Sanga Reddy District.

¶14

3 The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District.

¶15

4 The Additional Collector (Revenue), Sanga Reddy District.

¶16

5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy, Sanga Reddi District.

¶17

6 Tahsildar, Kondapur, Sanga Reddi District

¶18

..RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cou( may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order in Old Case No. 431502812019 Dated 29-06-2021 passed by the 2nd respondent with 3rd and 4th respondents as its members and declare the said order Dt.2910612021 as illegal, arbitrary, non-application of mind, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the settled principles of law, violatrve of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act 2020 violative of principles of natural^justice and violative of Art. 14 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequently to declare the action of the 6th respondent in recording the Iand of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.2-34gts falling in Sy.No. 109 of Mansanpalli Village, Kondapur lvlandal, Sanga Reddi District as Abadi and then changing it in the name of Anianeya Swamy, Assigned Land, allowing an extent of Ac.0-20 gts to be converted into graveyard as illegal,

¶20

¶21

arbitrary violative of principles of natural^justice, exploitation of^power and position and violative of the Law of Land.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶23

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 direct the respondents to rectify the entries on Dharani Portal by recording the name of the petitioner for the entire extent of land admeasuring Ac.2-14gts falling in Sy.No.109/1 of [/ansanpalli, Kondapur ltrlandal, Sanga Reddy District by issuing e-pass book and pay compensation for the land admeasuring Ac. 0-20Gts in Sy.No.109/2 forcefully converted into^{graveyard, pending} disposal of the writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. SURYA SATISH

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.32705 OF 2022

¶29

ORDER: (ORAL)

¶30

This writ petition is fited by the petitioner seeking to^quash the order in old case No.A3/5028/2019, dated 29.06.2021,^passed by respondent No.2 - The Special Tribunal, Sanga^{Reddy, as being} itlegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled^{principlesof law.}

¶31

It is submitted that Mr. K. Laxma Goud. the^father of^the petitioner was the pattedar of the land admeasuring Acs.2-34 guntas in Survey No. 109, situated at^{Mansanpalli Village,} Kondapur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. The name of Mr. K. Laxma Goud was duly recorded in the^{pahani for the year} 1979-80. After the death of Mr. K. Laxma Goud, the^{nameof the} petitioner was recorded in the revenue records from the^{year 1980} and the petitioner was issued^{pattadar passbookNo.54607 with} patta No.17, in respect of the subject land by respondent^No.6. After due panchanama, form-1B was issued shorving^{his ownership} over the subject land. The^{petitioneralso obtainedcrop loan from} the District Co-operative Bank^{Limitedand had been cultivating}

¶32

¶33

the subject land. The name of the petitioner was recorded in the pahani on 30.01.2016 It is submitted that to the surprise of the petitioner, during purification of records, when the petitioner approached respondent No.6 for issuing new pattadar passbook, an endorsement was issued stating that the subject land is recorded as Abadi and therefore, no pattadar passbook can be issued. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.5 under Rule 22-A of the Telangana fughts in Land and pattadar Passbooks Rules, l9g9 and the same was numbered as A3/502812019. In view of the Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar passbooks Act, 2020, the appeal was transferred to respondent No.2 _ The Special Tribunal, Sanga Reddy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without proper enquiry and notice to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. It is submitted that the subject land was wrongly recorded as Abadi without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner had been cultivating the subject land by obtaining crop loan, therefore, the question of recording the subject land as Abadi which means non-agricultural does not arise. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

¶34

(- ! I

¶35

/,'

¶36

IIeard learned counsel lor the petitioner^{and leamed} Assistant Govcrnment Pleadet for^{Revenue appearingfor} respondents and perused the^{impugned order}

¶37

It is the contention ol learned^{counseltbr the petitionerthat} the impugned order is^{passed in violation of principles of natural} justice and without giving an opportunity of hearing to^the petitioner'. It was mentioned in the^{irnpugnedorder that the} subject land is classifred as^{'sarkari'and recorded as'Poramboku-} Sarkari'. Repoft^was obtained^{lrom respondent No.6} -^Tahasildar, Kondapur who stated that^{Vykuntadhamam is being constructed in} an extent of Ac.0-20^guntas in^{Survey No.l09 and there is one} srnall temple cxisted and there^{is a small roadin thc subject land of} the petitioner and that the^{petitioneris not in physical possession of} the subject land. It was furlher^{stated that as per the provisionsof} the Telangana fughts in Land^{andPattadar Passbooks Act, 1971} the land is used for agricultural^{pttryose other than non-agricultural} purpose. It was also stated that therc^{is no proof as to how the} I'ather of the petitioner got the^subj ect^land.

¶38

¶39

¶40

In the opinion of this Court, respondent No.2 the Special l'ribunal, Sanga Reddy ought to have given opportunity ol heariug to the petitioner more so when adverse entries arc recorded ln respect of the subject land showing it as 'Poramboku-sarkari' It is the contention of learncd counsel for the petitioner that the report ol respondent No.6 - the Tahasildar, Kondapur based on which the impugned order was passed was not fun-rished to the petitioner. [n view of the same and in the interest ofjustice, it is just and necessary that the case of the petitioner is reheard and orders are passed by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶41

In the circumstanccs, rvithout expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is allowed lor the reason thc impugned order in old case No.A3l5028/2019, dated 29.06.2021 , bcing passed by respondent No.2 The Special Tribunal, Sanga Reddy, in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is set aside. The matter is rernanded back and consequently respondent No.2 is directed to rehear the matter by giving opporlunity of healing to the pctitioner and other interested/ concerned persolls and pass orders in accordance with law, by assigning reasons,

¶42

¶43

I 'I

¶44

u,ithin a period of forty tive (45) days from the date of r.eceipt o1,

¶45

copy of this older. No order. as to costs

¶46

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications,

¶47

ilany, pending in the rvrit petition stand closed

¶48