Disposed

Enugu Sarojana, v. The Tahsildar, Pochampally Mandal

Telangana HC18 Dec 2024WP/24414/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claiming protected tenancy through their father sought recall of a dismissal of their Section 32 tenancy application, dismissed in their absence without notice. The High Court set aside the dismissal order and the memo declining the recall petition, directing the Tahsildar to decide the application afresh after hearing both parties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 30.05.2009 and memo dated 13.08.2009 set aside; Tahsildar directed to decide the Section 32 application after hearing both parties within three months. No costs.

Enugu Sarojana, Vs The Tahsildar, Pochampally Mandal — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

|³³⁰²¹

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 24414 oF 2009

¶8

Between:

¶9

l.FqqS,i 9qro.E!r,W/o. E. Laxma Reddy, (D/o. late Gokula Mallaiah), -^{AGRICULTURE,Rl/o.RevanapaltyVillage, pochampallyMandal.} 2. Manne Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Mahne Aihiah, aqricultuie, Rt/o. H.No. 6-1-163, Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶10

Kota Madhavi, Wio- Kota Rama Reddy, agriculture, R/o: pigilipuram Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist-rict.-

¶11

...wRlT PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Tahsildar, Pochampalty lvlandal, Naloonda District.

¶14

Md. Habeebuddin late Moinuddin, busin6ss, R/o. H.No..20-4-203, eazipura, Hyderabad.

¶15

Smt.. Yase_ena Begum, W/o. Abdul Khader, business, Rl/o. H.No. 22-1 -1 , Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶16

S.mt. Aktharunnisa, Wo. tr/d. Abdullabbar, business, Ri/o. H.No. 22-1-1, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶17

S.mt. Waheedunissa, Wo. Anwarullah Sharif, business, R/o. H.No. 22-1-.1 , Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶18

Basheeruddin, S/o. Late Moinuddin, business, Fl/o. H.No. 2O-4-2O3, eazipura, Hyderabad.

¶19

Alimuddin, S/o. Late Moinuddin, business, R/o. H.No. 20-4-203, eazipura, Hyderabad.

¶20

Sri Ramana Agro Allieds, Rep. by its partner Sri N. Venkat Ramana, business, S/o. N.V. Chaudari, Aged about 60 years, H.No. A-1 1, Kakatiyanagar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶21

9 Ng.uj|Agt_A.S.ro. Allieds, Rep. byits partner K. Gopat Rao, S/o. Raghavaiah, -^{P_U9lNq_SS,H.No. E-1,Kakariyahagar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.}

¶22

1 0. Mallidi .^{Kasi Reddy, S/o_ Sri Ram Reddy, 6usines6, Aravalli Village,Attilli} Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶23

ll.Pwarampudi Venkat Reddy, S/o. Appa Reddy, business, R/o. H.No.3-91/'1, Komarajulanka Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavbri.

¶24

'12.S.. Rajitha, Wo..Srinivas Reddy, house hold, H.No. 1-6-1 1S, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad.

¶25

l3.Sathi Gangi Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, business, H.NO. 4-12911, Komarajulanka Village, Ravulapalem Mandal,-East Godavari District.

¶26

14.J- Sujatha, W/o. .Yadagiri, BUSINESS, Fi./o. plot No. 12, prasanthinagar, Va nastha lipuram, Hyderabad.

¶27

G_okula Chandraiah, S/o. late Mallaiah, agriculture, Rl/o. pochampally V and M, Nalgonda.

¶28

¶29

16.Gokula Yadaiah, S/o. late Mallaiah, AGRICULTURE, R/o. Pochampally V and M, Nalgonda.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other suitable Writ declaring the action of the respondents no.1 in not entertaining the^petition lo recall vide memo dt. 13/8/2009 in file No. 81345012009 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to principles of natural justice affecting right to life and property and consequently may be pleased to^pass suitable order and directions directing the respondent No.1 to entertain the petition and recall the order passed without notice accordance with law

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. AVANCHA H CHAKRAVARTHY

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.'t: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.8 & 9: SRI G. KRISHNA MURTHY

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 10,1 1,13: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to7,12 and 14 to 16: -

¶37

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶38

SK,J W.P.No.24414 of 2OO9

¶39

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶40

WRIT PETITIo { }\s211y_el 2eo9

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This writ petition is llled seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.1 in not entertaini.ng the recall petition vide Menro dated 13.08.2009 in File No.B/3a50/2009 as arbitrary and illega1.

¶43

Heard Sri A.I{. Chakravarthy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistzrnt^{(iovernrrrent} Plcader for Revenue and learned Counsel lor the unofficial respondents.

¶44

Learned Counsel lor 1.he petitioners submits that the lather of the petitioners late Gokula Mallaiah was the protected tenant in respect oi the lands situated at Meharnagar Village of Bhoodan Poctrampally Vil1age. The petitioners have filed application under Section 32 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 on 10.12.2007 against the

¶45

SK,J W.P.No.24411 of 2OO9

¶46

respondent Nos.2 to 16 before the respondent l\io.l and the same was registered as File No.B/365/2008 and notices were issued to the respondent Nos.2 to 16 to appea-r on 27.,)9.2008. The said case was adjourned lrom time to time zrt request of the parties. He submits that the said case was suo moto called on 18.03.2009 and issued notice to all parties fi-xing the date of hearing as 28.O4.2OO9, but no notice was served either on the petitioners or their Advocate and the docket order shows that the petitioners were ca-lled absent on 26.O5.2009 and posted the matter to 30.05.2009, on which date it was recorded that the petitioners and the respondents were called absent and dismissed the petition.

¶47

Learned Counsei for the petitioners lurther submits that the petitioners hled a petition on 25.O7.2009 seeking to recall the said order of dismissal, but the respondent No.1, without conducting any enquiry or hearing, suo

¶48

memo motu passed orders vide impugned

¶49

SK,J W.P.No.244L4 of 2OO9

¶50

¶51

dated 13.08.2009 informing the petitioners to prefer appea-l before the competent authority instead of passing orders on the reca1I petition, which is illegal and arbitrarlr and requested to set aside the said memo by allowing the writ petition.

¶52

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent No.1, based on the counter averments, submits that in the petition tiled by^'the petitioners under Section 32 of Andhra pradesh (Telangala Area) Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the respondent No. t had initially issued notices in Form No.X under Section 32 of the Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 to all the parties concerned u.ith the subject land and the case u,as adjourned lrom time to time at request of both the parties and again on 18.03.2009, the respondent No.1 has directed to issue notices, but due to the General Elections and other administrative work, no noticc u,as served on the

¶53

¶54

SK,J W.P.No.24414 ol 2009

¶55

petitioners an d the case^{\ .'as} talen up^{for hearingon} 26.05.2009 and^posted to^{30.05.2009, on which date} when the matter was called,^{the petitioners and the} \vas respondent l,r'ere called^{absentand the petition} dismissed granting liberty^{to the partiesto preferappeal} before the competent authority^{under Section 90 of} Andhra Prarlesh^(Telangana Area)^Tenancl'and Agriculture Land Act, 1950 and^{requested to dismiss the} writ petition.

¶56

After heeiring both sides and^{perusalof the record,} this Court is of the considered^{view that the pel.itioners} have fi1ed application under^{Section 32 ofAndhra} Pradesh (T.A) Tenalcy and^{Agricultura-1Land Act, 1950,} before the respondent No.1 for taking^{possessionof the} land by dispossessing the unofficial^{respondents on the} ground that they had inherited protected^{tenanr:1' 1ig[15} from their father late Gokula Mallaiah^{alongvrith the} other sons and the said application^{was adjournedfrom}

¶57

¶58

SK,J W.P.No.24414 of 2OO9

¶59

time to time at request of both the parties and finally it was dismissed due to absence of both parties.

¶60

As per the counter averments, though the respondent No.1 has directed to issue notice to the parties on 18.03.2009 by fixing the date of hearing on 26.Q5.2OO9, no notice was issued by the ofhce due to Genera-l Elections and other administrative work. Without serving any notice, the matter was taken up and as per the docket proceedings hled along with the writ affidavit dated 26.O5.20O9 shows that both parties were called absent except the respondent No. 14 and the matter was adjourned to 30.05.2OO9, on which date both parties were called absent and recorded that the petitioners have already informed to frle appeal against the orders of the Manda-l Revenue Officer and the petition is not maintainable and rejected. The respondent No. 1, without affording opportunity of hearing to both parties, has rejected the application basing on the records avaiiable

¶61

¶62

SK,J W.P.No.24414 of 2OO9

¶63

¶64

arrd granted liberty to the parties to prefer appeal before the competent authority under Section 90 of A.P.(T.A.) Tenalcy and Agriculture Land Act, 1950, which is illegal and arbitrary. Furthermore, the petition to reca.ll the said order of dismir;sal fi1ed by the petitioners has not taken up by the respondent No.1 and issued impugned Memo dated 13.08.2009 informing the petitioners to prefer appeal before the competent authority, which is in violation of thr: principles of natural justice. In vieu, of the saine, the order in Fiie No.B/365/2008 dated 30.05.3009 and the consequential Memo in Lr.No.B/3450/2OO9 dated 13.08.2OO9 are liable to be set aside

¶65

In view of the above hndings, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the order in File No.Bl365/200,3 dated 30.05.3009 and the consequential Memo in Lr.No.B/345012OO9 dated 13.08.2009 and the respondent No. i is directed to consider the application of

¶66

¶67

¶68

SK,J W.P.No.24414 ot 2OO9

¶69

the petitioners under Section 32 of^{AndhraPradesh} (Telangana Area) Tenancy Agricultural^{Lands Act, 1950 in} File No.B/365/2008 after affording^{opportunityof} personal hearing to both the parties by^{issuingnotices} axd pass appropriate orders^{within a periodof three (3)} months from the date of^{receiptof a copy of this order.} There sha-ll be no order as to costs.

¶70

Miscellaneous applications, if any^{pending in this}

¶71

writ petition, sha1l stand ciosed.

¶72

sol- l. vtlnva^LAXWtt "/ ASSISTANT^REGI$tRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1. J. il:ti:"l3hii"Ufl[E#il,Hft#Jffilkiintrn:Y3'nuu' 4. 5. Hlt"lt ij i?it.telm;sslil'i:i:?rJ8?L "r 6. Two CD CoPies B US^rr-

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811212024

ORDER

WP.No.24414 of 2009

f.
THe S r{
o.
n:
i il Ftl 20fi
* r1

¶84

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶85

quefAw

Enugu Sarojana, v. The Tahsildar, Pochampally Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Enugu Sarojana, v. The Tahsildar, Pochampally Mandal

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

G. Gopal, Vs The State of Telangana

Manappuram Finance Limited Vs The Tahsildar

Smt. Bodapothula Rani Vs The District Collector

Rasumalla Narsimha Vs State of Telangana

Nomumla Mohan Reddy (Died as per LRs Petitioners 4 to 6) Vs The Tahsildar

Jumbarthi Rajam Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary