Remanded

M. Surender Goud v. The Special Tribunal

Telangana HC18 Dec 2024WP/45216/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court heard a writ petition challenging an order of the Special Tribunal that dismissed a revision petition regarding land revenue entries. The Court observed violations of natural justice and procedural lapses, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for a reasoned hearing.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal and remanded matter to Tribunal for reasoned examination.

M. Surender Goud Vs The Special Tribunal — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32s61

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEC.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶7

WRIT PE loN NO: 45216 OF²⁰²²

¶8

Between:

¶9

M. Surender^{Goud, S/o Seethanna Goud, Aged} .abou.t .ap.^{years' Occ'} iiiri"JiriL,-nyJunol.,viia^{Vilage, chinnachintakuntaMandat, Mahabubnagar} Diskict

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Special Tribunal,^{(constitutedunder Act 9 of 2020), Mahabubnagar} District, Mahabubnagar.

¶13

The District Collector,^{Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District'}

¶14

The Revenue^Divisional I^{officer,MahabubnagarDivision,Mahabubnagar} District.

¶15

4.TheTahasildar,ChinnachintakuntaMandal,MahabubnagarDistrict'

¶16

The State of^{Telangana, Repby PrincipalSecretary, Revenue Department'} Secretariat Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶17

K. Ramchandra^{Reddy, Sio LateYella Reddy, Aged about 48 years'Occ'} Agriculture.

¶18

Smt. Kalyanamma,^{Wo LateYeligandla BalakistannaGoud' Aged about 75} years, OCc. House Hold.

¶19

Narsimhulu^{Goud,S/o Late Yeligandla Balakistanna Goud' Aged about32} years, Occ. Agriculture'

¶20

R 6 to 8 are^{Rl/o UndhyalaVillage,Ch innachintakuntaMandal'} Mahabubnagar^District'

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under^{Article226 of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyonein the nature of^{Writ of Certioraricalling for the recordsof the District Special} Tribunal case^{No. r.1t1o8l2o1g from the office of the District Special Tribunatat}

¶23

Mahabubnagar and decrare the order dated 27.01 .2021 passed in dismissing the revision petition, thereby, confirming the orders of Revenue Divisionar officer, Mahabubnagar dated 19.10.20't9 in case No. B/RoR/462512018 as arbitrary, ilregar, unconstitutionar, vioration of principres of naturar justice and to set_aside the same and consequentry direct the respondent no. 4 to imprement the name of the petitioner for his land in Ac. 1_24 gts in Sy. No. 306/Ee situated at Undyald Virrage of chinna chintakunta Mandar, Mahabubnagar District in the revenue records by issuing pattadar passbook.

¶24

lA NO: 2 o F 2022

¶25

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 the orders dated 21 .O1 .2O2 1 of the District Special Tribunal at Mahabubnagar in Case No D1l10\l201g in confirming the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar dated 19.10.2O1g in Case No. BtRoRt4625t2018.

¶26

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI S.KRISHNA SHARMA

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent No.i to 5: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR CHALLA

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶32

1IIRIT PETITION^{No.452 L6 0F 2022}

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition,^{under Article 226 ol the Constitutionof} India, is hled^{by the petitionerseekingthe foliowingreliei}

¶35

"..-.fo iss.re an^{apptopiateWit,order or dlrection more pqrtialarlAone in tle} nalure of^{WritoJ CerTi,rati calling} for^{tle recordsof the District SpecialTibundl} Cose No.D1/108/2019 from^{*eoffceof the Distnct Special Tnbunalat} Mal@bubirogar^{anddeclare the order dated 27 o1'2o21pdssed in dismtssiflgthe} retislnn^{petition,therebg, anfirmingthe ordersof RevenueDiuisional OllcPr'} Mahabubndgar^{dated19 1O.2O1g in6115s I{s'B/ROR/ 4625/ 2018 os arbitrary'} illegal, uaconstitutional,^{uiolation of pinciplesoJ nahiraliustice aftdto sct-o-slde tle} same and^{consequentlgdirect the respofldeftt No'4to inq)lefienttle nameoJ the} petitioner Jot^{histand in Ac. 1 .24gts in SA No306/ Eesitttatedot lJndgolaVilloae oJ} Chinna Chifttalalftta^{Maftda|, Mahabubnngor Districtin the ret)edLe records by} tssuitlg^{p.ltt.ld.irpassbook and magpa'ss such other order'-"}

¶36

It is the case^{of the petitioner that he is the absoluteowner'} pattadar and^{possessorof agriculturalland to an extent of Ac'l '24} guntas in Sy.No.3O6/Ee^{situatedatUndyala Viliageof Chinna} Chintakunta^{Mandal, MahabubnagarDistricthaving purchased the} same under^{registered sale deeduide documentNo'14011 of 2018} dated 13.08.2018.^{ltis also the case of the petitioner that his} vendor's father^{has purchased the said land undersadabainama} dated 06.04.1^{979 arrd the said sadabainamahas been validated} underSection5-AoftheTelanganaStateRightsinLandand Pattadar^{PassbooksAct, 1971 (for short''RORActJand the requisite} amount^{was alsodepositeduide challar- Nos'462 and 463'dated} l2.o2.Lggo.^{It is also stated that subsequent to his purchase- uidel}

¶37

¶38

CVBR. J w .P.No.45276 0f 2022

¶39

regrstered sale deed clated 13.08.2018, entries were made in the revenue rccords.

¶40

The grievance of the petitioner is that nearly after 30 years, questioning the validation of sadabainama u r nder the provisions or RoR Acr, respondent *" ^ "^-::'::".."-t No'6 herein filed an appeal on the file of the Revenue Divisionar a )fficer (RDO), Mahabubnagar under Section 5(5) of the R(lR Act. The RDO being the appelare authorit5r, while entertaining the appeal, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned entries made against the subject land in the old ROR. Aggrieved by t.he same, the pedtioner filed a revision and the said revision has been hken up for hearing before the Special Tribunal under Section t,6(21 of the ROR Act. The said revision was dismissed uide order d.atecl 2Z .O 1.2021.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that :he RDO ought not to have taken into consideration the appeal filed by respondent No.6, since it is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules. The appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of 30 years. The sadabainama was validated in favo ur of the petitioner,s v endor o srruor on o9'1o 1990 and thereafter, the vendor n." "-^^,,.^-'executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and the : said documents are act upon by makin5 entries in the reve.ue records. It is seen *.,, ,n: te record that while

¶42

¶43

CVBR, J W.P.No.45216 of 2022

¶44

¶45

I I

¶46

confirming the order^{passed by the appellateauthority,the Tribunal} has not proceeded on^{the aspectthat no notice was issued to the} persons, whose names^{have been recorded in the revenuerecords} and whose rights^{are affectedby virtue of amendments madein the} revenue records.^{The procedure adoptedby the RDO, as confirmed} by the Tribunal,^{is quite contraryto the principles of naturaljustice'}

¶47

In view of the said^{submissions, this Court, withoutexpressing} any opinion on^{the entitlementof either of the parties with regard to} seeking the relief^{of correction of the entries, is of the considered view} thatendsofjusticewouldbemetiftheorderpassedbytheTribunal confirming the^{order passedby the appellate authority is set aside} and the matter^{is relegatedto the Tribunal to examine the claim of} the petitioner^{and the respondents by duly taking into consideration} the revenue^{recordsand the maintainability.of the appealfrled by} respondent No.6^{herein,in accordance with law' The Tribunal shall} pass a reasoned order^{and communicate the same to the petitioner'} Till the Tribunal^{passan order, the parties are directed to maintain} stahts qto in^{respectof the subjectland, existing as on date' in all} respects.

¶48

With the above^{directions,the Writ Petitionis disposed of} There shall be^{no order as to costs'}

\rr_.

CVBR, J W .P.No.452t6 of 2022

¶53

Mis<:ellaneous petitions, if atTy, pending shall stand closed.

¶54

To,

¶55

assssr%fivn?"YRtR //rRuEcoPY//

¶56

sECTtoN &r,"a*

¶57

' Il?d:fi'ii:JJtt #t (constituted under Act s o,r 2020), Mahabubnasar

¶58

The District Collector, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 3 The_Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar Division, Mahabubnagar

¶59

The Tahasildar, Chinn

¶60

u tl,",'#o' **; j;"r,;*ffil"" F l";]"#,:,"::"T::, B u d nss,

¶61

One CC to SRt S.KRtSt

¶62

7 one cc to sR ,*".JXiil[Hi';::'.",:::?1,,.,

¶63

u lyJ":r3:ot"ffitoo REVEN,E, Hish court for the State or rerangana at

¶64

Two CD Copies

BSR BS+k

HIGH COURT

DATED: 18t12t2024

ORDER

( o \l l ltl- i IA, ( G
('
o I
(.)
J 1 8:D 2,j{

¶73

WP.No.45216 ot 2022

¶74

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶75

y-l(
b

¶76

M. Surender Goud v. The Special Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Surender Goud v. The Special Tribunal

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

A. Murali Mukund, Vs M. Haritha

Kheda Narsimha Chary Vs The State of Telangana

Kannekanti Rajya Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Bonam Vijaya Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Jetti Bhadramma Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Bagari Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana