Items No.29 - 31
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.A.Nos.287 and 276 of 2020
and I.A.No.1 of 2020 in/and W.A.No.283 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. W.A.No.287 of 2020 is directed against an order dated
21.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.866 of
2014 wherein, the appellant had prayed for issuance of a writ of
certiorari for declaring the order dated 24.12.2013, passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam District, in ROR Appeal
No.A3/7252/2013 along with the communication dated 31.12.2013 of
the respondent No.4, as arbitrary and violative of her fundamental
rights. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by observing that the order under challenge is the decision of the appellate authority dated 24.12.2013, under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and against the very same proceedings of the same petitioner, W.P.No.6507 of 2014 was filed, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2014.
2. W.A.No.276 of 2020 has been filed against the order dated 06.03.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6507 of 2014.
W.A.No.287 of 2020 and batch Page 1 of 4
3. W.A.No.283 of 2020 has been filed against the order dated 04.03.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4739 of 2020 whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.4 herein for issuing directions to the official respondents to implement the order dated 24.12.2013, was disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to implement the said order by conducting enquiry in accordance with law.
4. W.P.No.6507 of 2014 was filed by the appellant questioning an order dated 24.12.2013, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in an appeal preferred by the respondent No.4. The court had turned down the challenge laid to the said order on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer had found that there were several interpolations in the pahanies and 1B Register and the order of mutation was passed without issuing a notice to the respondent No.4, (appellant before the Revenue Divisional Officer). As a result, all the entries were directed to be cancelled and the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar to conduct a fresh enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties and thereafter to issue pattadar pass books to the eligible persons. Observing that an opportunity of hearing was duly granted to both sides, the court had declined to entertain W.P.No.6507 of 2014.
W.A.No.287 of 2020 and batch Page 2 of 4
5. It was the observations made in aforesaid order that has persuaded the learned Single Judge to dismiss W.P.No.866 of 2014 filed by the appellant.
6. On enquiring from learned counsel for the appellant whether the order dated 24.12.2013 was challenged by his client by preferring an appeal, he states that the said order has attained finality. In view of the aforesaid position, the subsequent petition filed by the appellant is squarely hit by the principles of res judicata. Any attempt on the part of the appellant to raise the same issue that has already been adjudicated upon in an earlier writ petition, can only be treated as gross abuse of the process of law. The writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Not satisfied by the said order, the present appeals have been filed which, on the face of it, are misconceived, as learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to dispute the stand taken by the other side that the order dated 06.03.2014 has attained finality. Not only that, we are informed that the appellant has been appearing before the Tahsildar after the matter was remanded by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the case was listed before the Tahsildar as recently as yesterday. Only on account of the submission of the appellant that she has filed the present appeals, was the matter adjourned by the Tahsildar.
W.A.No.287 of 2020 and batch Page 3 of 4
8. We may also note that the submission made by Mr. C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the Tahsildar is no longer competent to entertain the pending proceedings that were remanded back by the Revenue Divisional Officer, is found to be meritless, particularly when the order dated 06.03.2014 was passed, the unamended Act was in operation. Therefore, the Tahsildar shall comply with the said order, as it stands.
9. The present appeals and the Interlocutory Application are dismissed in limine as meritless with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) imposed on the appellant in each appeal. The said costs shall be tendered to the respondent No.4 herein before the Tahsildar on the next date of hearing, without which the appellant shall not be heard. As we have been informed that it was at the insistence of the appellant that the Tahsildar did not take the proceedings further and he has not fixed any date, it is deemed appropriate to direct the parties to appear before the Tahsildar on 22.06.2021, for further proceedings. The pending applications in these appeals, if any, are also dismissed.
______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 14.06.2021 vs/pln W.A.No.287 of 2020 and batch Page 4 of 4