Allowed

Gandra Rama Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Apr 2023WP/34019/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash an arbitrary order passed without recording evidence or giving reasons under the Agency Rules, 1924. The court set aside the order, directed disposal of the suit within three months, and restrained alienation of the property.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; suit to be disposed of on merits within 3 months; restraint on alienation of property granted.

Gandra Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.^{SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 34019 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gandra Rama Devi, Wo.G.Mahender Rao, Aged 56^years, Occ-House^wife, R/o.H.No.1-8-716,^'lst Floor, B.K. Enclave, Nallkunta, Hyderabad, Permenant Resident of Jannaram Village and Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (Revenue) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Additional Agent to Govemment and Prgect Officer, l.T.D.A, Utnoor, - Adilabad District. L'

¶13

The Tahsildar, Dandepalle Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶14

Makluri Swaroopa Rani, W/o.Makluri Raghupathi Rao, Aged about 60 years, Occ-House wife, Rl/o.Ummeda Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizama bad District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 any Writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for Records pertaining to the Orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in Suit No.A4lCPCl183l2O17, Dl.O4lOgl2O21 and to Quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, un Constitutional and contrary to the Provisions of CPC and Agency Rules, 1924 and also against the Principles of Natural Justice.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

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 2 & 3 not to entertain any alienations including the alteration of the nature of Schedule Land to an extent of Ac.5.'1 0 gts in Sy.No. 66/A/2 situated at Tallapet Village of Dandepalle Mandal, Mancherial District by keeping the entries made in Dharani Portal in favour of the 4th Respondent in abeyance pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

r--E

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} Suspend the operation of^{the orderspassedby the 2nd Respondent in suil} No. A4lC PC/.1 8 3t2O17 , Dt.O4lO9l2O21^{pend ingd isposa I of thea bove writpetition.}

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

Betwee n:

¶24

'1- The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (Revenue) Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶25

The Additional Agent^{to Governmentand ProiectOfficer,I T D A, Utnoor,} ' Adilabad District

¶26

The Tahsildar,^{Dandepalle Mandal, Mancherial District'}

¶27

Makluri Swaroopa^{Rani,W/o.IVakluri Ra.ghupathiRao,Agei about q0^y".'.'q'} O."lftoJ." wife, R/o.Ummeda^{Village, Nandipet Mandal, NizamabadDistrict.}

¶28

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶29

AND

¶30

Gandra Rama Devi,^{W/o- G. MahenderRao, Aged56 years, Occ-House wife'} nyo. fl.f.fo.f -A-2t6,^{1st Floor, B-K. Enclave, Nafikunta, Hyderabad, Permenant} nEiOent of Jannaram^{Village and Mandal, Mancherial District'} i.,

¶31

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶32

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the Highcourt may be pleasedto} vacate the interim^{order grantedin LA.No. 212022 in wP.No. 3401912022,dl:} 291812022.

¶33

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶34

Between:

¶35

Makluri Swaroopa^{Rani, W/o. Makluri Raghupathi} fao,^{Aged about 60-years,} Oi"lftorr" wifri, R/o.Ummeda^{Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District}

¶36

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT No.4

¶37

AND

¶38

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (Revenue) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶39

The Addilional Agent to Government and^project Officer, l.T.D.A, Utnoor, Adilabad District.

¶40

The Tahsildar, Dandepalle Arlandal, Mancherial District.

¶41

¶42

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶43

Gandra Rama Devi,^{Wo. G. Nlahender Rao,Aged56 years' Occ-Housewife,} R/o. H.No.1-8-716, 1st Floor,^{B.K. Enclave, Nallkunta, Hyderabad, Permenant} Resident of Jannaram Village^{and Mandal, MancherialDistrict.}

¶44

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER

¶45

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} vacate the interim directions^{dated2910812022in l.A. 2 of 2022 ln W.P. No.} 34019 of 2022 in the^{instant W.P.}

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{C. HARIPREETH}

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 to 3: ASST. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE}

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M. PRITHVI^{RAJ REPRESENTINGFOR} SRI R. MANGULAL

¶49

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶50

IIl@

¶51

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶52

W.P. No.34O19 OF 2o22

¶53

ORDER:

¶54

This u rir petition is lilcd seeking Writ of Certiorari to call for records pertar,-ing to thc ordcrs passed by the respondent No.2 in Suit No.AalCPCi la3l2Ol7, dated O4.09.2021 and to quash rhe same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of CP(l and Agency Rules, i924 and also against the principlcs ol nat urai^just icc.

¶55

Hearcl Sri. C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner, lcamt cl AssisLant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appcarir-rg fbr respondent Nos.l to 3, Sri M. Prithvi Raj, learned counsel rcprescnting Sri R. Mangulal, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner hled Suit No.Aai CPC/ l83l2Ol7 on the file of respondent No.2 invoking thc^provisions of the Teiangana State Agency Rules, 1924^{(hereinafter referred} to as'Rules'for brevity) seeking partition of and separate possession of suit schedule property admcasuring Acs. 10.20 guntas in Sy.No.66/A/ I situated at Tallapet Villagc, Dandepalle Mandal, Mancherial District and respondcnt No.2 rvithout following the due procedure as

¶57

¶58

-I

¶59

conLemplated under the provisions of the Rules as well as the provisions of CPC, passed the cryptic order. He lurther contended that the petitioner has not received the copy of the impugncd order passed by the responded No.2 daLed 04.O9.2021 and the petitioner came to know about the said order in the month of June, 2022. Immediately, the petitioner applied for Certihed Copy of the order and the same was furnished to him on 23.02.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

¶60

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 vehemently contended that the writ petition frled by the petitioner is not maintainable, especially as the provisions of Rule 49 of Rules and the petitioner without availing the statutory remedy' appiied as available under Rules liled this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Articre 226 of constitution of India. He further submits that the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order on 04.og.2o2r, whereas the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court on 22.Oa.2O22 i.e, after lapse of nearly one year without explaining the reasons for the delay and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Learned Assistant Government pleader also reiterated the very same submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶61

I have consrdered^{thc rival submissions made by the} respective parties:Lnd^{perused th(r materialavailableon record lt} is an undisputcci^{fact Lhirt thepetitioner hledSuit} No.Aa/CPC/^{18312017 againstrcspondent No 4, whois none other} than her brothcr^{seeking partition and separate possession of the} suit schedule^{propcrty invokingthe provision of the Rules'}

¶62

Respondenl^{No.2 .idjudicatcdthe proceedings as per the} powers conferred^{rlnder the Rulcs' 1924 on par with civil Courts} and the^{provisionsoiCivil Procedure Code' i908and also} applicable as^{per the provisionsof Rule 16 of Rules' In the} instant case,^{respondent No 2 n'ithoutrecording the evidenceof} the parlies and^{wrthout markirlg the documents as exhibitsand} also without^{giving reasons/hndingsinrespect of eachissue'} passed the crYPtic^order.

¶63

In State of M.P.^{Vs' Babu LaF the Hon'ble Apex Court}

¶64

(Full Bench) held^{in paraNos.5and 6 as under:}

¶65

One ol^{the principles on whichcertiorari is issued is where} the court^acts illegally^{and thereis enoron the face of record'} If the cou(^{usurps the jurisdiction, the record is corrected by} certiorari. This^{Cascis a glaring instanceof such violation of} Iaw. The High^{Court was in error in not issuingwrit of} certiorari.

¶66

' ltstt1l^{z scc} ats

¶67

¶68

-It

¶69

The judgment of the High Court is ser aside. A writ of certiorari is issued to quash the judgment and decrce datcd August 8. 1973 passed by thc rcspondcnt Civil Judge, Class II, Tehsil Jhabua, District Jhabua in Civil Suit No. 70-.1 ol 1973.

¶70

In thc above judgment the Honble Apex Court held that Writ of Certiorari can be issued to quash the judgment and decree. Hence the writ petition filed by the petitioner for seeking writ of certiorari questioning the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is maintainable

¶71

lnsofar as the delay and latches is concerned, [he petitioncr specifically averred in the writ aflidavit at para No.9 stating that the petitioner had not received the copy of the impugned order and he came to know about the same in the month of June, 2022 and when the wrong entries are made in the Dharani portal, immediately he applied for Certified Copy of the order dated 22.06.2022 and the same was fumished on 23.07.2023 and he hled writ petition on 22.08.2022. The said averments were not denied by the respondent No. 4.

¶72

In view of the foregoing reasons, without going into the other aspects of the case about the claims of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 in respect of subject property, the impugned order in Suir No.A4lCpC/lB3/2OtZ, dared 04.Og.2O2t passed by respondent No.2 is set aside and the respondent No.2 is directed

¶73

EEEEETi7

¶74

I I lit ,l

¶75

to dispose of the suit on mcrits in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to thc petirioner trs well as the respondent No.4, within a period ol ihree (3) montl-rs from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till such tirne rl.rc rcspondent No.4 is directed not to alienate the suit schcdule propcrr'.

¶76

Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶77

//TRUE COPY//

¶78

SD/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c!)

¶79

¶80

SECTION OFFICER

¶81

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (Revenue) Department' The State of

¶82

Telangand, Secretariat,^Hyderabad

¶83

z. i[JA"ooitional^{Agent to G6vernment and Project Officer, LT.D.A, Utnoor,} Adilabad District. L'

¶84

g. Th;Trht,hai, Dandepalle tVlandal,^N'4ancherial District' ;. d; btio^{5nt C. HAirl PREETH,} 4dv99a!q.i9P-ycl E. i;; 66ii" ciFon^{socrn-r-wer-rARE, Hish couhfor the state of}

¶85

Telangana. [OUT]

¶86

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410412023

ORDER

WP.No.34019 of 2022

S !Ar
ri' {\1 a',
iJ
ioi,J s 4 l{AY 2tr8
\a) ...!
{'

¶93

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶94

q)
"))

Gandra Rama Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandra Rama Devi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baddi Ramya Vs The Government of Telangana

Payyavula Komuramma Vs The State Of Telangana And 10 Others

Rayala Kondala Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sulgam Saidulu Vs The State of Telangana And 5 Others

Syed Sirajul Arfeen Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Gurram Ashok Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others