THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT APPEAL No.250 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. K.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the
appellants; Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for
respondents 1 to 4; and Ms. B.Rachna, learned counsel for
respondents No.5 and 6.
2. Appellants, as the writ petitioners, have filed W.P.No.14688 of 2019 for quashing of order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, Vikarabad District. An interlocutory application was also filed by the appellants as the writ petitioners, being I.A.No.1 of 2019, for stay of order dated 27.04.2019. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 17.07.2019 directed both the parties to maintain status quo. I.A.No.2 of 2019 was filed by respondents No.5 and 6 for vacating the status quo order dated 17.07.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019. 2
3. After adverting to the rival submissions, learned Single Judge vacated the status quo order dated 17.07.2019 by the impugned order dated 10.02.2020. Relevant portion of the order dated 10.02.2020 reads as under:
"In this case, it is to be seen that the writ petitioners filed an application before the RDO for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds, which was allowed on 04.09.2017 setting aside the proceedings issued in on 13.02.2009. The RDO also did not accept the contention of the writ petitioners that the subject land is a government land. Basing on the pahanies, he held that one Syed Ahmed is the pattadar. However, he allowed the appeal, which was set aside by the Joint Collector, by impugned proceedings. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents that when once the subject land is a patta land, there is no locus standi of the petitioners in filing the application before the RDO. Moreover, RDO has no power to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds as held by this Court in the case of Kuruva Hanumapthamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, State of A.P, in WP No.10122 of 2016, dated 11.10.2017. Even the Joint Collector held that the subject land is not a government land, but it is a patta land. The Joint Collector, basing on the documentary evidence, found that there is no evidence 3 to show that the subject land is a government land and the petitioners have not produced any evidence in support of their claims. That apart, the petitioners have not produced any document to show that the subject land is a government land, stating about the order in WP No.299l of 1980. The petitioners have also not filed single document to show that they are in possession of the subject land. Though they have filed some receipts, the same were disbelieved by the Joint Collector stating that they do not contain any survey numbers.
In view of above facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to continue the interim order granted on 17.07.2019 and same is hereby vacated."
4. Without expressing any opinion on merit, we are of the view that the writ appeal has been preferred against an interlocutory order vacating the earlier status quo order. The related writ petition is still pending.
5. In the circumstances, we feel that it would be in the interest of justice if the writ petition is heard at an early date, rather than parallelly continuing with the writ appeal.
6. That being the position, we request the learned Single Judge to take up W.P.No.14688 of 2019 for hearing at an early date.
4
7. Subject to the above, writ appeal is dismissed.
8. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J 04.07.2022 vs