Remanded

R. Devender Reddy and Another v. the District Collector, Rr Dist and 5 Others

Telangana HC5 Dec 2024WP/25220/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross writ petitions over occupancy rights certificates under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act for land at Bogaram Village. The Joint Collector had cancelled certificates granted to both sides, including one outside the appeal's subject matter and without notice. The court set aside that order and remanded the appeals for fresh consideration after personal hearings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Joint Collector order dated 05.10.2004 set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity of personal hearing to both sides; miscellaneous applications closed.

R. Devender Reddy and Another Vs the District Collector… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. SARATH}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^N O: 2504o &^{25220 OF 2004}

¶7

W.P.No.25040 OF 2004

¶8

Between:

¶9

CHINALA MYSAIAH,^(Died as^{per LRs P3 to P6)'}

¶10

Chinala Ramulu,^(Died as^{perLRs P7 andPB),}

¶11

Smt. Chinala Pichamma,^{W/o.Late Chinnala Mysaiah,Aged. 74 years,Occ.} Agril, R/o. H.No.^4-710/1 , Bhogaram^{Village, Keesara Mandal' Ranga Reddy} District.

¶12

Chinala lylaiah, S/o. Late Chinnala^{Mysaiah, Aged. 54 yearsOcc. Agril, Rl/o '} H.No. 4-7i0l1 , Bhogaram Village, Keesara^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶13

Chinala Srisailam, S/o. Late^{Chinnala Mysaiah, Aged 49 years, Occ.Agril,} Rlio. H.No. 4-7lol1, Bhogaram^{Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy} District.

¶14

Smt. Mettu Jangamma, W/o.^{Venkatesh, Aged 44 years, Occ.House Wife,} N o. 2-2-647 12321 1, Central Excise^Colony.

¶15

Petitioners 3to6 brought on record^{as LRs of deceased 1"t Petitioneras} per C.O. dt.30/7/09 in WPMP No'18156/09.

¶16

Chinala Mahesh, S/o. Chinala^{Ramulu, Aged about 55 Years,Occ.Aglil, R:/o'} Barsiguda H/o. Bogaram Village, Keesara^{Mandal, Medchal-MalkaigiriDistrict.}

¶17

1. Chinala Narsimha, S/o. China{a Ramulu, Aged about 52 Years, Occ. Agr!1, R/o. Barsiguda H/o. Bogaram^{Village, Keesara Mandal,Medchal-Malkajgiri} District.

¶18

Petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 are brought^{on record as per G.O.dt.14.06-2024} in lA No. 1/2024.

¶19

...PETITIONERS

¶20

AND

¶21

The Joint Collector, Ranga^{Reddy District at Hyderabad.}

¶22

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{East Division, Ranga Reddy District at} Hyderabad.

¶23

R.Devender Reddy, s/o R.Chandra^Reddy,

¶24

R.Rajeshwar Reddy, s/o R.Chandra Reddy,

¶25

Both rio Bhogaram Gram Panchayat, Keesra Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶26

..,RESPONDENTS

¶27

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 more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari and quash the order dated 5-10-2004 passed in Appeal No.F1l5730/2000 by the lst respondent herein i.e., Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶28

l.A. NO: 1 OF 200 4(WPMP. NO: 32748 OF 2004⁾

¶29

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 suspend the operation of order dated 5-1O-2OO4 passed in Appeal No.F115730/2000 by the lst respondent herein i.e., Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶30

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(VW MP. NO: 2358 OF 2005) \

¶31

Between:

¶32

'1. R.DevenderReddy, s/o R.Chandra Reddy,

¶33

R.Rajeshwar Reddy, s/o R.Chandra Reddy,

¶34

Both r/o Bhogaram Gram Panchayat, Keesra Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶35

...PETiTIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3&4

¶36

AND

¶37

Chinala Mysaiah, s/o. Mallaiah, Rl/o H.No 4-7l0l1 , Bhogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶38

Chinala Ramulu, s/o. Mallaiah, Fl/o, H.No 4-7lol1 , Bhogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶39

..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶40

The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad.

¶41

The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶43

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to vacate the interim order dt.31-12-2OO4 madeⁱⁿ Wp No. 25o4ol2oo4.

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VENKATA RAM REDDY PANDUGA

¶45

Counsel forthe Respondents No.1&2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶46

Counsel for the Respondents No.374 : SRI S.SRINIVAS REDDY

¶47

W.P.No.25220 OF 2004

¶48

Between:

¶49

R. Devender reddy, S/o R. Chandra reddy, Aged about 63^years,

¶50

R. Raajeswar Reddy S/o R. Chandra reddy, Aged about 53^years, Both R/o H. NO.2-72, Bhogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy^Dist

¶51

...PETITIONERS

¶52

AND

¶53

1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad

¶54

2 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad

¶55

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East, Division, Ranga Reddy District,

¶56

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

¶57

Chinala Mysaiah S/o Mallaiah, (Died as^per LRs R7 to R10)

¶58

Chinala Ramulu S/o Mallaiah,^(Died as^per LRs Rl¹ and R12)

¶59

Smt. Chinnala Pitchamma, Wo. Late Chinnala Mysaiah, Age. 55^years, Occ. Agriculture.

¶60

Chinnala lylaiah, S/o. Late Chinnala Musaiah, Aged about 40^years, Occ. Agriculture.

¶61

Chinnala Srisailam, S/o. Late Chinnala Mysaiah, Aged about 35^years, Occ. Agriculture.

¶62

RR 7 to 9 are Rl/o. H.No. 4-710/1, Bhogaram Village, Keesara Mandal,^Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶63

1O.Smt. Mittu Jingamma, Wo. Venkatesh, D/o. Late Chinnala Mysaiah, aged 30 years, Occ. house Wife, Rl/o. H.No. 2-2-647123211, Central Excise Colony, Hyderabad 15.

¶64

RR7to10 brought on record as LRs of deceased Petitioner No.5, as^per C.O.dt.30/7/09 in WPMP No.1 8353/09.

¶65

l l.Chinala Mahesh, S/o. Chinala Ramulu, Aged about 55^Years, Occ.^{Agril, Rl/o.} Barsiguda H/o. Bogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkaigiri^District.

¶66

'l2.Chinala Narsimha, S/o. Chinala Ramulu, Aged about 52 Years, Occ. Agril, Rl/o. Barsiguda H/o. Bogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶67

Respondent Nos.^'ll and 12 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Respondent No.6 as per C.O.dt. 14.06.2024 in lA No. 112024.

¶68

...RESPONDENTS

¶69

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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in file D. No. F115730/2000 dated 5-10-2004, cancelling the occupancy rights certificate granted to the petitioners in Case No. 11918/85 dated 24-3-1985 under Section B, read with Section 10 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) lnams Abolition Act, 1955 and also the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Ji5348i1998, dt'12-6-2000 granting ORC to 5th and 6th respondents, as illegal, arbitrary, without^jurisdiction and contrary to provisions of A.P.(Telangana Area) lnamas Abolition Act, 1955 and violative of Principles of natural^justice and the Constitutional Right guaranteed to petitioners under Article 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in file No. F1l573Ol20O dt 5-10-2004 and the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in proceedings NO. J/5348/1998 dated 12-6-2000.

¶70

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP. NO: 32941 OF 2OO4l

¶71

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 stay the -operation of the order of the 2ndrespondent in file D. No. F1l573O/2000 dt 5-10-2004.

¶72

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondents No.7to12 : SRI VENKATA RAM REDDY PANDUGA

¶73

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶74

SK,J W.P.Nos.25040 ar.d 25220 of 2OO4

¶75

¶76

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶77

WRIT PETITION Nos.25O4 O alnd 25220 of 2OO4

¶78

COMMON ORDER:

¶79

Since both these rvrit petitions a_re filed challenging the orders passed in Appeal File No.Fl/5730I2OOO dated 05.10.2004 by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, I-Iyderabad, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶80

The petitioners in W.P.No.2522O of 2OO4 are the respondent N<1s.3 and 4 in W.P.No.25O4O of 2OO4. For the purpose of narrating the facts, W.P.No.25220 of 2004 is being taken as a lead case.

¶81

Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, iearned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.2S22O of

¶82

2OO4/respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.P.No.2SO4O of 2OO4

¶83

l / \

¶84

¶85

SK,J W.P.Nos.25O4O^{ar\d25220of 2OO4}

¶86

and Sri J.^{Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the} respondent Nos.S^{and 6 inW'P'No'25220 of} 2OO4 lpetitioners^{in W.P.No.25O40 of 2OO4 and learned} Assistant Government^{Pleader for Revenue for the} officia-l respondents^{in both the writ petitions'}

¶87

Learned Senior^{Counsel for the petitionersin} W.P.No.2522O ol^{2OO4 submitsthat the land in} Badshaguda^{Inam Maktha Villagewas un-surveyed and} there are no^{Government revenuerecords prior to the} year 1955. In^{the year 1955, the said villagewas} included in^{the revenue village of Bhogaramand the} land admeasuring^{Ac.66-30 gts was shown in Sy'No'16'} which is Inam land,^{and the father of the petitioners} late Chandra^{Reddyand his brotherlate Malla Reddy} were the cullivating^{tenants of said lands' The said} extent of land^{was dividedand Ac'33-15 gts each was} allotted to the^{father of the petitionerslate Chandra}

¶88

SK'J W.P.Nos.25040 a;td 25220 of 2OO4

¶89

Reddy and his brother Maila Reddy. In the pahani for the year \974-75, the lands in possession of the father of the petitioners were shown in Sy.No.16/A and the lands possessed by Malla Reddy were shown in Sy.No.i6lB and they w(] re cultivating the land by raising various crops and providing electricit5r connection for supply of water to the helds.

¶90

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that for the years 1977-78, the Revenue authorities recorded the names ol the petitioners AS possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.33.15 gts in Sy.No.16/D instead of Sy.No. 16/A and the names of the respondent Nos.S and 6 were shown as occupants of the land along with them. In the said pahani, the respondent Nos.S and 6 were shown as pattadars and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.1O-OO in was Sy.No.'O' and for the year 1978-79, it \

¶91

¶92

¶93

SK,J W.P.Nos.2504O atd 25220 of 2OO4

¶94

recorded that Ac.17-OO gts was in possession of the petitioners in Sy.No.'O', but there is no such survey nuinber in the village. He submits that when the respondent Nos.S and 6 have applied for^grant of Occupancy Rights Certihcate ln respect of the iand admeasuring Ac. 17-00 in Sy.No.16 of Badshaguda Village, the petitioners have hled objection^petition stating that the land to which Occupancy^Rights Certificate was sought belongs to them as they^were already issued Occupancy Rights Certihcate in the^year 1985 and the respondent Nos.S and 6 had neverⁱⁿ possession of the subject land either as pattedars or tenants as on the relevant date for^grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate.

¶95

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that when the Occupalcy Rights Certificate was issued to the petitioners in the year, 1985, the

¶96

I ! I

¶97

¶98

SK,J W.P.Nos.25040 and 25220 of 2OO4

¶99

respondent Nos.S and 6 never raised objections nor appea-red before the competent authority. He submits that the respondent No.2 erred in cancelling the Occupancy Rights Certificate of the petitioners without there being an appeal or revision and it amounts to suo motu enquiry. He further submits that though the revenue records disclose that the land is under cultivation and the same is assessed to land revenue, the respondent No.2 erred in holding that the subject land and the lalds of the petitioners were used for grazing cattle and they are Government lands. He further submits that as on today, the petitioners are in possession of the subject land and they are cultivating the sarne and requested to set aside the order impugned.

¶100

I \

¶101

¶102

SI<,J W.P.Nos.25040 and^{25220 of 2OO4}

¶103

7 . Learned Senior Counsel^{lor the petitioners in} W.P.No.2522O of 2OO4 has^{relied on the following}

¶104

Judgments:-

¶105

Lingareddy Ramakrishna^{Reddy vs. Director of} Settlements, HYderabadl.

¶106

Executive Oflicer,^{Group of Temples, Wanaparthy,} Mahabubnagar District^{vs. Joint} Collector, Mahabubnagar2

¶107

D. Narsimha^{Rao vs. JointCollector,} Mahabubnagar District3

¶108

karned Counsel^{for the respondent Nos.5and 6} in W.P.No.25220^{of 2OO4 submits that the respondent} Nos.5 and 6 had^{purchased the agriculturalland} admeasuring Ac.17.00^{gts having Dakhala No.554 in} t Sy.N<ir'O' lrom one Meer^{Mehdi Ali Khan,who is the} Maktadar of said land,^{about 35 years back and since}

¶109

'^{tgsz(z)eLo ess} 'zoz:(t)^{eLo sl (rs)(rB)} r 2023(4) ALD 5s8 (TS) (DB)

¶110

¶111

SK,J W.P.Nos.25040 and 25220 of 2OO4

¶112

¶113

then, they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of said land by paying iald revenue to the Government. They have applied Form No.1 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certihcate in their favour before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesra Mandal. During the course of enquiry, the petitioners have hled objection petition stating that they are holding the land in Sy.No.16 to an extent of Ac.33. 15 gts ca-lled as 'Guttala Polam'and they are the perpetual lease holders from the Maktadar and their land is part of the land of the respondent Nos.S and 6 and requested not to issue Occupancy Rights Certificate irr favour of the respondent Nos.S and 6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after conducting enquiry and considering the records available, rejected the claim of the petitioners and issued Occupapcy Rights Certificate in favour of the respqndent ,.t\ ! Nos.S and 6 in _ ____ File -.,_tNo.J/5358/199S

tl il

SK,J w P.Nos.2so4O ar,d 25220 of 2OO4

¶119

dated 12.06.2000 holding that^{Sy.No.'O' was officially} recognized by Nazim-e-Zamabandi^{and sanctionedAin-} lzala and the boundaries of the land^{are different and} distinct as that of the land^{of the petitioners.}

¶120

karned Counsel for the respondent^Nos.S and⁶ further submits that challenging the order of^the Revenue Divisional Olficer dated 12.06.2OOO,^the pelitioners have hled appeal belore the Joint Collector under Section 24 of Abolition of Inams^Act ald^the sarne was rejected by setting aside the order^passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in^granting Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and also set aside the Occupancy Rights Certilicate granted in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.33.15 gts in Sy.No.16 situated at Bogaram Village and declared the land as Governm_ent

¶121

¶122

¶123

SK,J W.P.Nos.2504O and 25220 of 2OO4

¶124

land by the order impugned 1n Appeal D.No.F1/ 57 30 / 2OOO dated 05. LO .2OO4 .

¶125

Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 further submits that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were in possession of the subject iand from the date of vesting i.e.,01.77.1973 and after conducting enquiry ald verification of the records, the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer has granted Occupancy Rights Certilicate in their favour, but the respondent No.1 without considering the revenue records, erred in holding that the subject land is a grazing land and declared as Government Land and requested to set aside the impugned order.

¶126

After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners in W.P.No.2522O of 2OO4 have filed appeat before the respondent No.2 challenging the orders

¶127

¶128

¶129

SK'J w.P.Nos.2504O aI]^d 25220 of 2OO4

¶130

passed by the respondent No.3 in File No.J/5348/L998 dated 12.06.2OOO wherein the Occupancy Rights Certihcate was granted 1n favour of the respondent Nos.S and 6 herein in respect ol Sy.No.'O' Dhakala No.554 admeasuring Ac. 17.00 gts of land situated at Badesabguda Maqta, Bogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶131

The respondent No.2, while disposing of the said appeal, passed the impugned order by setting aside the proceedings No.J/53a8/ 1998 dated 72.06.2000 in granting Occupancy Rights Certilicate in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein and a-Iso set aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the petitioners in Case No.H/ 11918/85 dated 24.03.1985 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.33-15 gts situated at Bogaram Village, basing on the admission made by the responde4t Nos.S and 6 that the land is used as grazing

(

=+_+--

w.p.Nos.25o4o ^rd^2s22o "f^:{d!4 land. Even though the proceedings dated 24.03.19g5 were not chalenged in the appeal, the respondent No.2, without giving opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, suo motu passed the impugned order by setting aside the Occupancy Righ ts Certificate granted in favour of the petitioners as wejl as the respondent Nos.S and 6 and the same is arbitrary and iilegal.

¶136

Learned Counsel appearing for both sides have stated that the subject property 1n the appeal IS Ac. 17.00 gts in respect of Dhakala No.554, but the rmpugned order was passed setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate granted in favour of the petitioners, which was not the subject matter before the respondent No.2, and also without any intimation in cancelling the Occupancy Rights Certificate to the petitionersa.nd the said action is arbitr ary and illegal.__-f\ I

\ \

I I

w.p.Nos.2so4o ,.a zszzo or itdlc

¶141

The respondent No.2 has to pass orders basing on the records available and the reasons given by the lower authority i.e, respondent No.3_Revenue Divisional oflicer and a-lso the grounds raised before him, but not basing on the oral submissions made by the parties.

¶142

In view of the above findings, the Writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the impugned order in File No.F1l5730 /2OOO dated 0S. !O.2OO4 passed by the respondent No.2 and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after giving opportunity of personal hearing to both sides and pass appropnate orders as per law as expeditiously AS possible.

¶143

To,

¶144

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending 1n these writ petitions, shall stand closed. S .V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REG ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (l SECTION OFFICER

¶145

:,i^[i;:J5;;ll,i",::i#ffi^{#!lH,;?ttj#g:l?ffi:.nun,"--'} 3"1333,l"iEivJft

¶146

^q'R,ff^{TEfl SySXX,X.BT:xfi*x{"?i3F?rrr}

¶147

¶148

¶149

: ,'d,ir"tt to GP FoR REVENUE, Hish court for the state of retangana. I. 9#S 33 tosRts.sRtNtvAs REDDY, Advocate. topucl BS -w

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/1212024 \ \

1 H: SIA/
\ (.
i,
3 30 DEI iic{ t
,/
t)I-S.r,., . il it'..- ()

¶154

COMMON ORDER

¶155

WP.No.25040 & 25220 ot 2004

¶156

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS

¶157

\rystk's ?!'

R. Devender Reddy and Another v. the District Collector, Rr Dist and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Devender Reddy and Another v. the District Collector, Rr Dist and 5 Others

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

Kothala Varudu Janardhan Vs The Joint Collector

A. Surender Reddy, Son of Narayana Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Repby its Prl. Secretary

Shaik Nazeema , Nazmeen wife of Mohammed Jahangir Vs the District Collector, Hyderabad with its

G.Sujatha and 3 Others Vs the Govt of A.P Rep.by Its Prl Secretary and 2 Others

Y.Sree Jayanthi, Vs State of Telangana, Rep by its Pri. Secretary to Government

Chinala Mysaiah, (Died as per LRs P3 to P6) Vs the Jt.Collector at Hyderabad and 3 Others