Allowed

Syed Misba Ahmed v. The Principal Secretary (Revenue)

Telangana HC19 Apr 2023WP/5500/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order correcting land record entries. The order was set aside primarily because the underlying survey was conducted without putting the petitioner on notice, causing a violation of natural justice. The court refrained from addressing the appurisos of long delay without deciding the prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings are set aside; the writ petition is allowed without costs.

Syed Misba Ahmed Vs The Principal Secretary (Revenue) — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s61

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI^{SUDHEER KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5500 OF²⁰⁰⁹

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sved Misba Ahmed, S/o.Syed^{Abbas, Occ: Business & Agricultur,Fi./o. JujulraoPeta} Village, Kusumanchi Mandal,^{Khammam District, A.P.}

¶9

...PET!T|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Principal Secretary^{(Revenue), Secretariat, Hydgrqbgd.} Z. tre Oistriit Collector,^{Khammam, Khammam District, A.P.} 3. The Joint Collector, Khammam,^{KhammamDistrict, A.P.}

¶12

+. fne VtanOal Revenue Officer,^{Kusumanchi Mandal', Khammam District, A'P'}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article²²⁶ ol^{lhe constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a direction, order^{or writ more particularly a writ of certiorari} quashing the orders of 3rd Respondent^{by calling for the records and declaring as} illegal, arbitrary and^{opposedto right to hold propertymade in the proceedings} No.R.C.No.H-6t26g5l2o}6^{dt. 16.02.2009and opposed to the principlesof natural} justice and Article No. 300 (A) of Constitution^{of lndia.}

¶15

I.A. NO:1 oF 200 9(WPMP.^{NO:7192 oF 2009)}

¶16

Petition under section^{1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleasedto} suspend the^{proceedings of the 3rd respondent made in R.c.No.H6/2695/2006dt.} 16.2.2009^pending disposal^{of the above main W.P.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl.M. VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY}

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondents:^{AGP FORREVENUE}

¶19

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶20

l i I II I I I I I I II I II I

¶21

THE HffN'II ,E SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEI}R KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.SSOO of 2OO9

¶22

,ORDER:

¶23

Hearc learned connsel appcaring for thr: lrct.itir ner and learned Assi: Lant Governmcnt Pleader for Retenue a:pearing for the rcstrronde rt s.

¶24

Trrourl h the impugned order, datcd 16.)2.2OO9, responcrent ro.3 passed an order in the purport,:c. exercise of hrs po rvel rnder Section 166-ts of the /.nc h -a Pradesh (Telar-rgana. / re.a) Land Revenue Act, 1317 FasJi (irr. slrort, 'the Act, l3 I7' c^'dering for correction of the entries i I the revenue recorcls in r :spect of the land situated in Srrnt:i' No.519 of Juljular aop:: a \rillage from thc year 1954-lili till date by correcting tl'I exLellt of land as Acs.11.19 guntzts n th( place of Acs. 19.26 gL r-rl.as.

¶25

From r perusal of the impugned order stto,,r.s that the basis f,rr or lering such corrcction of entrtes ir ,Ie revenue recorcls is br sed upon the survey said Lo herve tr< t::r conducted by the As;: Lslant Djrector of S urvey and L,trrcl Records, Khamrrranr, and his letter, dated 28.11.:),OC7, .,,zhe rein the Assista rt^rli et:tor is stated to have concluded that lhe cxtent of

¶26

¶27

¶28

land situated in Survey No.519 is only Acs. 11.19 guntas, but not Acs.19.26 guntas, as is being entered in the revenue records from the year 1954-55. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said survey said to have been conducted by the Assistant Director behind the back of the petitioner and without putting the petitioner on notice. It is also contended that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Acs. 19.26 guntas in Survey No.519 and he was also issued pattadar passbook for the total extent of Iand.

¶29

The contention of the petitioner, though taken note of by respondent No.3 in the impugned order about conducting of survey behind the back of the petitioner, is not answered by respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order. In spite of the petitioner taking a specihc ground in the affidavit filed in support of the counter, the counter afhdavit is totally silent on the aspect of the petitioner putting on notice before conducting the survey by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records.

¶30

Further, the entries that are made in the revenue records with effect from the year 1954-55 are sought to be altered after

¶31

¶32

I I I I I i

¶33

a long l,rp s( ,I more than 60 years. Whether re:;pr n,1cr L No.3 is entitled t() xe rt:ise his power under Secr ion l(r6-[t of t.he Revenu- Act 13I 7 Fasli to alter or correct the ent:'it:s u'hich arc stzLnding fo r dccades together is also doubtiul I[:wcver, this Court is rLol ir-rclined to go into that aspeci as .lrr: irnpllgnsd order is l otr,r ly based on a sur-vey said to have be r:r r conducted behind t he l: rck of the petitioner. Therefore, lh s^(lourt is of the considereci r, ew that the impugned order is not sur;tainable as the sarne is olely based upon a survey repott saic lc have bcen submitr,:cl I y the Assistant Director of Survt..r and Land Ile cord:;, n.lt rtr is brought into existence behin<l []te back of rhe peLitionr:r-for u'ant of compliance of principles ol nir:Lrra ijustice.

¶34

The rr'; it pr:tition is accordingly allowed and ttre irnpugned proceec ingsr are set aside. However, it i:; t:lt open for the responclt nrs that if they so choose to redo ttLe ,:r^ tire exercise by follou,inp the due process of law by affrrrc ing r;ufhcient opportr,rn ir\ t() the petitioner. There shall be r o order as to costs,.

¶35

NIisr:r'l arreous Petitions, if any, pending i;-r t.his r,",rit pe titior sh:Ll stand closed.

¶36

That Rule Nisi ras been made absolute as above.

¶37

Witness the l-l< n'ble the Chief Justice UJJAL BHUYAN, on tlris^'/Vednesday, the Nineteenth day of Aql l, Two Thousand and Twenty Three.

¶38

SD/-N.CH AIIDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSIST'.NT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Princ;ipar li cretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabarl.

¶43

The District O( llector, Khammam, Khammam District, T.S

¶44

The Joirt Co I^,ctor, Khammam. Khammam District. T.S.

¶45

4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kusumanchi t\ilandal, Khammam District, T S 5 One CC to Sri. NI. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, Advocate tOpUCj 6 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court'fbr the Statrj of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶46

7 Two CD Copies

¶47

CHR LS

HIGH COURI-

DATED:19104'2023

/1
I'
I
;j lt (l h ':!.t
ii

¶54

ORDER

¶55

W.P.No.5500 of 2009

¶56

ALLOWING IHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C CSTS

¶57

,' t "')
\ )-r ''v>
' \ll"'

Syed Misba Ahmed v. The Principal Secretary (Revenue)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Misba Ahmed v. The Principal Secretary (Revenue)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padidala Sambaiah , Shivarao , Samba Siva Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Kadari Kiran Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Ravinuthula Nagendramma Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Lal Kishore Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Kuchipudi Kusuma Vs The State of Telangana

Karkala Mamathamma Vs The State of Telangana