Md. Mahaboobpasha Vs State of Telangana

Md. Mahaboobpasha, S/o. late Yakubali, Aged about.^50ye3l.q, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.9-1-69, TDP Center,^{BandarigudemVillage,P.V.} Colony Road, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri^{Kothagudem District.}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal^{Secretary,Tribal Welfare} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Appellate Authority/Additional Agent to Government,^{ProjectOfficer,} ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶14

The Primary Authority/Special Deputy^{Collector(TW), Bhadrachalam,} Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Manuguru Mandal, Manuguru, Bhadradri^{KothagudemDistrict.} 5. Karam Venkata Ramana, Dlo. Karim^{Chalapathi, Aged. 36 years,} Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Chinnamidisileru^{Village, Chada Mandal,Bhadradri} Kothagudem Diskict.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{India prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more^particularly one^{in the nature of} Writ of mandamus, declaring the action^{of the 2nd respondent in not granting stay} pursuant to unnumbered CMA dated. 18.O7.2024^{preferredagainst the} proceedings issued in LTR Case No.44l2O23lMGR, d1.19.03.2024^{of the 3'd}

¶18

J

¶19

respondent and declare the same as^illegal, arbitrary^{violative of Principles of} natural^justice and also contrary to^{the spirit of order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and} also violative of Articles 14,21^{and 300-4} of^{Constitution of lndiaand} consequential direct the 2nd^{respondentto grant stay of all further proceedings} including dispossession of the^{petitioner pursuantto the LTR CaseNo.} 44t2O23lMGR, dt.19.03.2024 of the 3'd^{respondentduring the pendency of} unnumbered CMA dated. 18.07.2024.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmaybe pleased to grant} stay of all further^proceedings in^{LTR Case No. 44l2023lMGR,dti9.03.2024} passed by the 3rd respondent including dispossession of the^{petitioner,pending} disposal of writ^petition.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶23

Between:

¶24

Karam Venkata Ramana, D/o. Karim Chalapathi, Aged. 36^years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Chinnamidisileru Village, Charla Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.5

¶25

AND

¶26

1 Md. Mahaboobpasha, Sio. late Yakubali, Aged about. 50^yeals, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.9-1-69, TDP Center, Bandarigudem^Village,P.V. Colony Road, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem^District.

¶27

...RESPONDENT/WIRIT PETITIONER

¶28

State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶29

The Appellate Authority/ Additional Agent to Government, Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶30

The Primary Authority/ Special^{Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri} Kothagudem District.

¶31

The Tahsildar, Manuguru^{Mandal, Manuguru, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.}

¶32

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶33

Petition under section 151^{CPCprayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the.petition,the Highcourt may be pleased to} vacate the lnterim Order dt. 04.10.2024^{passedin WP No. 27882 ot 2024'}

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI T. VASANTHARAO}

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1to 3 : AGP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE}

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.5: SRI B. KARTHIKNARAYAN} The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶38

I

¶39

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶40

WRIT PETITION No.27882 of 2024

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

Heard Sri T, Vasantha Rao, learned counsel appearing on trehalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and Sri B. Karthik Narayan, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

¶43

The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as u nder: -

¶44

"...to issuc a \r'Jrit. order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not granting stay pursuant tc un-numbered CMA dated 18.07.2024 preferred against the proceedings issued in LTR Case No.44/2023/MGR, dared 19.03.2024 of the 3d respondent and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary violative of^principles of natural justice and also contrary to the spirit of order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CpC and also violat!'re of Articles 14,21 and 300_A of Constitution of India and conscquential direct the 2,,d respondent to grant stay of all further proceedings

¶45

l

¶46

including dispossession of the petitioner pursuant to the LTR Case No.44/2023/MGR, dated 19.03.2 OZ4 of the 3.d respondent during the pendency of un-numbered CMA dated 18.07.2024 and to pass such further orders as this Hon,ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.,,

¶47

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of residential property to an extent of 0.02 cents, house bearing No.9_1_69, TDP Center, pV Colony Road, Bandarigudem Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District. The petitioner had not executed any mortgage deed in favour of anybody including respondent No.5 in respect of the subject property. However, it is further case of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 had created a fabricated document and fileci affidavit before respondent No.3 stating that respondent No.5 had entered into usufructuary mortgage with the petitioner in respect of the subject schedule property and obtained loan of Rs.12,50,000/- and respondent No.3 on the basis of the said affidavit issued notice to the petitioner and issued impugned proceedings in LTR Case No.44/2023/MGR dated 19.03.2024 and on the same day, the eviction proceedings are arso issued under rule 7 (4) of Land Transfer Regulation, none of the

¶48

I I

¶49

i.

¶50

contentions put-forth by the petitioner through petitioner counsel had been considered by respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the W.P.No.7952 of 2024 before this Court and the same was disposed of by an order dated 08.07.2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal within a period of two (2) weeks along with stay application and also granted status-quo for a period of three (3) weeks.

¶51

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before respondent No.2 on LA.O7.2O24 itself and the same had been unnumbered as on date. The stay application filed by the petitioner is also pending for numbering. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed present writ petition.

¶52

Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3 submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing respondent No.2 to dispose off on merits the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.2, aggrleved against the proceedings issued in LTR Case No. No.44l2023lMGR, dated 19.03.2024 of respondent No.3 within a reasonable period by

¶53

t

¶54

¶55

giving due notice and opportunity to both the petitioner and respondent No.5.

¶56

Sri B. Karthik Narayan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 submits that the interim orders granted by this Court on 04.10.2024 needs to be vacated and respondent No.2 may be directed to decide the CMA filed by the petitioner on t8.07.2024 on merits within a reasonable period by giving due notice to the petitioner and also respondent No.5 herein.

¶57

7. TAKING INTO CONSIDE TION:

¶58

a). The orders of this Court dated Og.O7.2O24 oassed in W.P,No.7952 of 2024 and the relevant paraoraoh No,1O is extracted hereunder:

¶59

"10. In view of the fact that against the impugned order dated L9.O3,2O24 passed by the 3rd respondent appeal lies to the 2nd respondent as per Rule I of Schedule Land Transfer Regulation Rules, 1969, as indicated in the order impugned dated 19,O3.2024 passed in LTR Case No.44/2A23/ MGR, the petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal before the 3rd respondent against the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner is at liberty to put-forth all the pleas as put-forth

¶60

,)

¶61

in the present Writ Petition including the jurisdiction aspect raised in the present Writ Petition before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same in accordance to law, upgn the petitioner filing the stay application along with the appeal within two (O2) weeks from the date of filing of said application by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Status-quo is directed to be maintained for a period of three (O3) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order."

¶62

b). The interim orders of this Court dated 04.1Q.2024 passed in the present W.P.N(t.27882 of 2O24 is extracted hereunder:

¶63

"Status quo to be maintained in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.O,O2 cents in Sy.No,138/1585 situated at Bandarigudem Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dastrict till 17.LO.2024."

¶64

c), The fact that on an earlier occasion this Court granted status-guo for a period of three (3) weeks vide the orders of this Court dated O8.O7.ZOZ4 passed in W.P.No.7952 of 2024 (referred to and extracted above), and in view of the fact that the petitioner had filed statutory appeal before respondent No.2

¶65

r'

¶66

6

¶67

on 18.07.2024 itself as per the directions of this Court dated 08.07.2O24 passed in W.P.No.7952 ot 2024 and the said statutory appeal had been un-numbered as on date, the writ petition itself is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to dispose of un-numbered CMA preferred by the petitioner on 18.O7.2O24, aggraeved against the proceedings of respondent No,3 issued in LTR case No.44/2O23IMGR, dated 19.03.2024, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance to law/ in conformity with the principles of natural justice as per the rules in force by giving reasonable opportunity of persona! hearing to both the petitioner and also respondent No.5 and decide the subject issue itself,

¶68

d). Till the above exercise is concluded and appropriate orders passed by respondent No.2 disposing off the un-numbered CMA dated 18.07.2O24 on merits preferred by the petitioner aggrieved against the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 in LTR case No.44/2O23lMGR, dated 19.O3.2O24 within the time period as stipulated above as per the directions as indicated above, the interim orders of this Court dated

¶69

l

¶70

O4.LO.2O24 passed in the present W.p.No.27882 of

¶71

2024 (referred to and extracted above) shall remain in

¶72

force. However, there shall be no order as to costs,

¶73

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. . j

¶74

sd/- P.^{CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA} / ASSI*TANT^{REGISTRAR /} //TRUE COPY// |\t --=-=-

¶75

SLcrrox oFFlcER

¶76

To,

¶77

1 The Principal^{Secretary,Tribal WelfareDepartment'Secretariat' Stateof} 2. Iilr.flX3i,,llvf,ifi*fu, Additionar^{Asent to Governmenr,projectorricer,} rTiSnl5[Xli?"""naraiii^{riiiaoradriKothagudem District'}

¶78

J. rhe Primary^Authoritv/ $;;i;i'rj;"p;tv^{Collector (TW)'Bhadrachalam'} Bhidradri K6thagudem^District'

¶79

1. The Tahsildar,^{Manuguru vraiiar,rtranuguruBhad,radri Kothagudem District'} 5. One CC to Sri^{T VasanthaRao,Advocatelur-uul} 6. i,ijl 6d.iJcp^{tor soJiarviLit"ir".'liigh c"lrt tor the stateof relansana,at} Hvderabad IOUTI

¶80