Remanded

Md.Rasheed Khan v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC13 Apr 2023WP/386/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order by the Tehsildar directing recovery of a loan amount under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, as illegal and arbitrary. The matter was remitted to the Tehsildar to adjudicate the plea on merits as a Civil Court and pass a proper judgment and decree.

What did the court decide?

impugned order set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.3 to pass orders afresh as a Civil Court within three months.

Md.Rasheed Khan Vs The State of Telangana… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

t³³⁰³¹

1 I \ 1 \

{

1.,j

F^{r ELANGAN A}

Hr^{GHc ou Rr'} "^1^{I$t" :ltlt^o}

¶9

(SPecial^{OriginalJurisdiction)}

¶10

'"'f,^?3+I"''F^l'B1L'ji'lE'?ll'"'Lt"-''

¶11

PRESENT

¶12

RABLE^{SRIJUSTTCE J SREENIVASRAO} THE^HONOU

¶13

386^OF2020 w RI^TPE TITro^NNo:

¶14

{

¶15

'"*"ilsl^Tl:??1$'ll3!,l3"HiJ#'!S'*fr'"'$;""$i:[1'#'::i#;::;

¶16

AND Secretary'^{sociarwerfare}

¶17

1 ;:?:f.Ef{ :?3[i3[3i',fi ii'3Lt?Principar Adilabad^{DistrictAdilabad.}

¶18

1. ]a" o,.,." "''ector' Proiect^{officer'ITDA'Utnoor}

¶19

3 The^{Addrlional Agent to the clu"r.nrn"nt 'no} 4 ,n" irnr'"",^{Dandepalli Mandal' Adilabad District'} 5 li,t*****:ttt33xi;3':t';l'l"J*Daneeoarrv'repbvitsBranch...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition^{underArticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in tn" t"'i""'t filed therewith'the High Court may be} uppl.o"t"^{Writ' Order or Direction' more particularly oneln} pleased^{to issue} 'n '^{O""taring ttre impugned order passed by the 3rd} the nature respondent^{of in Writ case of} ""0"l-""iit'"'uu5/2016 dt3o-7-201gdirecting the 4th respondent^{to reiover the movable/immovablepropertiesas per Revenue} Recovery^{Act, as being irregat' arOitraryand contraryto G O Ms No- 193 dl 17-4'} 2OO2^{afidconsequentlysetasiOethe same' and to grant such other relief or} reliefs^{as this Hon'ble co"t a""rnt fit and properin the circumstancesof the} case

¶21

¶22

IA NO 10F 2020

¶23

pelition unr, rn the affrdavrt frie ,r Sl,clron t5 j CpC p.aytnq^tnat in the cIcL.ms:ances stated r:t support rf the petrtion, il grant staV ol alt i 201 9 on lhe frtt: ;, i".,,^{pj-":::91"s;;; ;;;"'i,"" iT,:"',!;i} : %'r: 3,"T3ii: r ;ro respondent and the the main Wnt petitrbearing Rc No tsr. e.t2)1e :',;; ;y-i;" ;; :^"1-t-"qY""trv^{vt:mc dt} os/201s n in the ,ntur..t o'r ir.ji.-"'^{' respondentpt:n' jingt disposal} of

lA NO: 2 oF 202a

Betw6en

The Stare of I rl;rngana rep I uepanmenl i rcr eta riat H,,dubl"'J:X'',n"'pal^{secretary,Soc al} welfare

¶28

2 The Dtstnct C( Iector, Adilabad District Adilabad.

¶29

3 The Addrtional A!,ent to rhe Government and project Officer ll_DA Utnoor 4 The Tahsildar )andepalli Ir/andal, Adilabad Drstrict

¶30

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶31

AND

¶32

1 Mo.Rasheec K ra..t s/o IVlrnwar Khan. aged about 5E years ccc Agriculture, r/o Thattapel v a,le Dandepalry nevenuE-riail"J, iiil,r"olo o,.tr,,i

¶33

¶34

... RESPONDE N Upr:TtTtONER

¶35

2 The Telangana 3r'anreena Bank Branch_Dandepally, r.ep. by itl; Br,lnch IVIanager Rerr at.ar Reddy s/o eratnap ReOOy.'

¶36

...RESPONDEN'T/RESPONDENT

¶37

Petition under l€'chon 151 cpc praying that in the circu nr;tances stated in the affidavit filed rr support of the petition, the High court m:ry be cleased to vacate the lnterim rcler dated 07101t202O passed in l.A.No. I of 2OZO in W.P.No.386 of .2020; nci dismiss the Writ petition

¶38

lA NO: 3 OF 2020

¶39

Petition under iectron 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstan,:es stated in the affidavit f iled r. s rpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to rhe pr lit oner herein to file the additional affida,rit in :he above W.P.No. 386 of 2020. n the interest of justice

¶40

Counsel for the Petiti rner: SRI GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI Counsel for the Resp rndent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR SOCIAL WELF,{FIE Counsel for the Resp rndent No.5: SMT VIDYA SREE The Court made the I rllowing: ORDER

.t {

I l I

{

{

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE} J.^SREENTVASRAO

¶49

WRIT PETITION No.386 of 2O2O

¶50

ORDER

¶51

This Writ . Petition .s frled seeking writ of Mandamus dcclaring the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 in Case No.AalCPC/655/2016 dated 30.O7.2019 directing the respondent No.4 to recover the movable/immovable properties as per Revenue Recovery Act, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 193 dated 17.O4.2OO2 and consequently to set aside the same.

¶52

Heard Sri Gajanand Chakravarthi, iearned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Vidya Sree, learned counsel representing respondent No.5/Bank, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5-Bank filed a suit i.e., Case.No.A4/CPC/65512O16 before the respondent No.3 for recovery of Rs.3,80,9281- with interest, invokirrg the provisions under Section 26 Order VII, Rule 1 and Order 34 Rule 4 of C.P.C

{

F l- I

)

3.1 . [{e^{fr-rrthr rsubmits that thercsporrdetlt\o 3passed} impugned^{lrcic (iated 30 07 20i9 directing the r(:jl)ol de nt No'1} to r<,icover^{--hc I alamount ,,r'ithtnterestundr'rRe 'c tlu: Recover-r'} Act, 1890^{and he same is contraryto las"He lr-tr-th':r sllbmits} that the^{resporlle n1 No'3 ought to 52vg clsciclr:d tllr- :;ui on merits} and pass^{jutlg nr:nt and decree and the profisi(']] s of Revenue} Recovery^{Act.L l!r0 are n()t applicable'}

¶61

4.Per<:ontrt,iearneclcounselappearinglorrrsllor.dentNo.5Bank submits^{that the petitioner inspite of sert'ice of notice'} neither^{app€:a:<l before respondentNo 3 nor 'file 1 irnl' u'ritten} statement.^{(lr the other hand' the petitioner rar; given an} undertaking^{irthe monthof Ma1' 2019 beforethc Prtr'1ect Officer} 0Cr0 /^{an C inspite of} ITDA, Utnoor^{o pay an amountof Rs l} '0O the same^{ht:aS not paid the saidamount' and t he respondent} No.3 has^{righl y passedthc impugned order'}

¶62

She furt^{ter submits that the pelitioner rvillrt'ut availingthe} remedl' ol^{apr::r1 as availableunder the Re6'r-r1a1irr sf iled the rvrit} petition and t^{e same is not maintainable urldt'r lari'}

}

-'{

Having considcred the rival^{submissions made by respective} parties and afler going through the record, it clearly^revealsthat the respondent^No.5 llank filed suit for^{recovery ofamount} Rs.3,80,928/ agzrinst the^petitioner. Respondent^{No.3 rvhile} adjudicating the^proceedings as a Civil Court^{ought tohave} considered the^{pleadings, materialevidenceon record and passed} the orders on merits. In the^{rnstantcase, respondent No.3 passed} the impugned order straight au,ay directing respondent^No'4- Tahsildar, Dandepalli Mandal to recover the loan amount^under Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.

¶69

7 . The respondent No.3 without following the due^{process as} contemplated under the^provisions of^{C.P.C passed the impugned} order directing the respondent No.4 to recover the amount^of Rs.5,0O,213/- under Revenue Recovery Act, 1890^{though the} provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act ar.e not applicable. Without going into the other aspects of the case, the impugned^order passed by the respondent No.3 is set aside and^{the matteris} remitted back to respondent No.3 to^{pass orders a-fresh, in} accordance with lar,t'.

I I

F 1l

t ili

S.Learllec<;trnselforthepetitionel.hasilir'.-llir.rLirldcrtal<ing to this Cortrt t ,at^{the petitioner} "rrilI^{coopcralle lot r'Iisposa]of the} subject mitttor^{rf suit bel,:re respondentNo3ili's'11 rtlrlent No3 is} drrected to rss re^{notice to the petitroner arj \ (rll rs respondent} No.S-Banl< af]c tl^{disposeof the suit rr ithirr ar Pt'rrod o[ three (03)}

¶77

¶78

months frrlm tl^{e date of receipt ol coplof thi:; or-clt;''}

¶79

g. Accorclinl¹¹ ,^{the u'rrt petition is dispose'1trl' N I r:lsts'}

¶80

Miscellat- :ous^{petitionspending,if' an1 rn tlrir; u rit petition,}

¶81

shall stan d clo^;ed.

¶82

SDr-N. SRIHARI ASSIS'I'ANI REGISTRAR Lt9 SEcTI()N OFFICER

¶83

//TRUE^COPY//

¶84

To,

¶85

The PrtnciPa Sr:crelary,^{Social Welfare Department Secretaliat'State of} Telangana,^F /derabad. I he Distrtct⁽ )llector.^{Adrlabad District Adilabad.}

¶86

3 The Addttion irG-"ni to ine Covernment^{andProJec' OfficerTDA, Utnoor} 4 The Tahsilda l)indeoalli Mandal,^{AdrlabadDistrrct.} The Branch^I ra iaqeiT;iangana^{Grameena Bank, l-lra'rch Dandepally} Rathnakar^R d(jv a/o Prathap^Reddy.

¶87

6 One CC to^! ir'6AnrlAtrt o' cHAKRAVARTHI^{Advocate I f t)uc ]} 7 Two CCs to iI, FOR SOCIAL^{WELFARE,HighCOITTfO.h€,St]tEOI} Telanqana. I )LITI one iC tc,ⁱ Mr VIDYA SREE^Advocate [OPUC]

¶88

8I Two CD Cor

KKS GJP

HIGH COUR^'

{

DATED:1 310¹¹²⁰²³

ORDER

WP.No.386 ,l'2020

/a' - -r'- :i i.l
),i
1 g JIJN ?UI]
{
I
.,;.

¶104

DISPOSIN( '3F^{THE WP} wtTHouT^t:osTS

¶105

t?
Q*
\rtr
$

¶106

{

Md.Rasheed Khan v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Rasheed Khan v. The State of Telangana and 4 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

Nalluri Ramakrishna, Vs Government of a.P., repre., by its Principal Secretary

J. Subhash, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Chief

Bellamkonda Gattaiah, Vs Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of T.S.

Marshakatla Balaraju Vs The State of Telangana

Nallandhigal Radha Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Kotni Vijaya Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana