Yadavelli Varija v. P.Padmanabha Reddy

[ 34181 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 1443 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order Daled 02t12t2024 in W.P.No 29471 ol 2O23 on the file of the High CourtBetween: Yadavelli Varija, S/o Srinivas, Aged about !4 years, Occ Housewife, Fl/o Damaracherla Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.6 AND

1. P.Padmanabha Reddy, S/o Venkata Rama Narimha Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ Doctor, R/6 H.No.19-453, Reddy Colony, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District'

...RES'.NDENT/ wRtr pETlrtoNER

2. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, T.S.

3. Th; Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Government of Telangana State of Telangana, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad-SOO 001

4. The District Co"llector, l"taigoida District, Colledtorate Complex, Nalgonda District, Telangana-508O01

5. The Revenue -Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda Division, Nalgonda Diskict, Telangana-508001 .

6. The T;hsildar, O/o Mandal Revenue Office' At Damar6harla Mandal, Nalgonda District' Telangana-508001'

...RESpoNDENTS/RESpoNDENTS IANO:1O F 2024 Petition under section 1 51 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct revenue authorities to continue the naffe of the appellant in all revenue records in respect of the land of the appellant land to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts in sy.No.120 which is situated at Dhamaracherla Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District pending disposal of the writ apPeal.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI RApOLU BHASKAR counser for the Respondent No.1: snr e.MAvLii ieooy, sENroR couNSEL counser ror the Respondent Nos.2 t"i?E;TfAlil,3[iX'X?ro" KATRAM, GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADIIE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO WRIT APPEAL No.L443 of 2024 JUDGMENT: (kr the Hon'bte Sri Justie J. Sreeniuas Ro.o) This intra court appeal has been frled by the appellant invoking the provisions of Clause 15 of the l'etters Patent agglieved by the order dated 02.12 -2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29 471 of 2023, whereunder the order passed by respondent No'4 dated 2l 'O4.2O22 was set aside and directed him to conduct fresh enquiry basing on the application submitted by the appellant and respondent No' I ald pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to all the interested persons, in accordance with law.

2.

Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. S. Aravind, learned counsel for respondent No'1 and Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6, on admission'

3.

Brief facts ofthe case:

Respondent No. I frled W.P.No.2947l of 2023 clzriming that he is owner ancl possessor of the agricultural land to a.n extent of Ac.2.00 gts. in Sy.No.l2O situated at Dhamaracherla Village arrd Mandal, Nalgonda District and the sarne was purchased through registered sale cleed dated 21.09.1990 and the revenue authorities mutated his na.me in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and litle deed in his favour. Subsequently, respondent No.1 sold an extent of Ac.O.27 gts. in Sy.No.120 to one Mr.Jadala Ramachandm and also executed registered gift deed t() an extent of Ac.O.13 gts. in favour of his son dated 24.O8.2O21 and he is in possession of the left over land to an extent of Ac. 1.OO gts. in Sy.No. 12O and lJle appellant made an application through online on 16.09.

2021 before the revenue authorities for issuance of epattadar pass book and at that stage, respondent No.l came to know the order passed by respondent No.4 dated 21.04.2022. Questioning the above said order, respondent No. 1 frled W.P.No.29471. of 2023 and leamed Single Judge. of this Court set aside the order <lated 21.O4.2022 permitting respondent No. 1 and the appellant to submit appropriate application and on hling of such applicatiorL, directed respondent No.

issuing notice to all the interested persons in accordance with law' Thus, the appellant hled the present writ appeal' 4.

Submisslons of learned counsel for the appellant: l,earned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No.l is not having any semblance of right' interest over the subject property and with an intention to grab the subject property approached this Court and filed W'P'No'29471 of 2023 ' He further submitted that respondent No'4 after following due procedure as contemplated under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2O2O passed the order dated 21.O4.2O22. He furttrer submitted that when respondent No'l was trying to interfere with the subject property, the appellant frled Suitino.S.No'33of2023beforethePrincipalJuniorCivilJudge at Miryalguda, for perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.

l from interfering with the suit schedule property ald when the said suit is pending, the revenue authorities are not having any right, jurisdiction to adjudicate the rights of tJle parties in respect of the very salne subject property and under these circumstances, the leamed Single Judge ought to have directed respondent No. 1 to approach the competent Civil Court to establish his rights.

5.

This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. Initiajly, the appellant hled W.p.No.297S3 of 2O2l agatnst the revenue cfficials and sought direction for issuance of e_ pattadar pa.ss book in respect of ttre subject land. Learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ pedtion on 22.11 .2O21 directed the respondent authorities therein to pass necessary orders on the on-line applica.tion submitted by the appellant dated l6.Og.2O2L as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from thr: date of receipt of a copy of the order rluly putting all the interested parties on notice and taking in to c<>nsideration the objections, if any.

6'

It is pertinent to mention that the pursuant io the said order, respondent No.4 without _ issuing any notice and opportunity to respondent No.1, passed order dated 2r.04.2022. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 is claiming rights over 1,he subject property pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 2l.Og.1gg}. Admittedly, the nature of the Juit liled by the appellant is only simple suit for perpetual injunction and not a title suit. Hence, the contention of the tearned counsel for the appellant tl,rat when the civil suit is pending before the competent cirril Court, the

revenue authorities are not having power to adjudicate the proceedings in respect of the very same subject property is not tenable under law, especially basing on the application submitted by the appellant and pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29753 of 2O2l only, respondent No'4 passed order dated 2I.O4.2O22. The core issue involved in the case on hand is that respondent No'4 without issuing any notice and opportunity to respondent No'l passed order dated 21.04.2022 and the same is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, learned Single Judge rightly set aside the order dated 21'04 '2022 passed by respondent I , No.4 and directed respondent No'4 to examine and conduct fresh enquiry on the applications of respondent No'1 and the appellant' after issuing notices to all the interested persons, pursuant to the principle laid down by the FuII Bench judgment of tJlis Court in Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Rewenue Oflicer' Serilingampally Mandal and othersr'

7.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge' However, respondent No.4 is directed to dispose of the application ' etR 2oo8 lp t5

submitted by the appellant as well as respondent No. 1 after giving notice and opportunity to both of them including any other affected party, within a period of two months from the date of submission of such applications.

8.

With the above said modification, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/. K. SAILESHT DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII Ll SECTION OFFICER To The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, T.S, State of Telangana.

The chief comnrissioner of .Land Administration Govemment of reranoana ii:1ffi uaff "liE61lr.:,atii"reli*,::j#a1fl i%?:il;",;'' District, Telanoana-50800i The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguga Division, Nalgonda District, Telangana-508001 .

The Tahsildar, O/o Mandal Revenue_Office, At Damarcharla Mandal, Nalgo_nda Districr, Telanqana-508001.

One CC to SRI RAPoLU BHASKAR, Advocate IoPUCI One CC to SRI SAtNt ARAVIND. eou"iri" r6Eiidr ""' Two CCs to cp FoR nevervuE, Hi.sh C;;ffi;i,e State of Tetansana, ar Hyderabad. IOUfl Two CD Copies 1.

2.

4.

5.

I PSK.

GJP s

HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212024

JUDGMENT

1 i s-ni e oA WA.No.1443 of 2024 a_ t o), .+ 1t25 .z [\ l[i{ o 1..

, r;,.1c1 =r'

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ca'W R(B