THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
W.A.No.136 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant;
Mr. Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1;
and Mr. P.Ram Prasad, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing respondents No.2 and 3.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the W.P.No.26010 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition questioning the action of Special Deputy Collector (TW) -cum- Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam (respondent No.3 herein) in not disposing of LTR case filed by respondent No.1 on 25.11.2021 expeditiously.
::2::
4. The LTR case has arisen on a complaint lodged by respondent No.1 against the land granted to the appellant for setting up of an industrial unit, alleging that such land alienation was in violation of Telangana State Scheduled Areas (Land Transfer) Regulation 1 of 1959. It was contended on behalf of respondent No.1 before the learned Singe Judge that the village in which industrial unit of the appellant is set up, is a scheduled area within the meaning of the Presidential Order, 1950. There is a prohibition of transfer of land to non-tribals in scheduled areas. Therefore, respondent No.1 had filed LTR case, which is pending.
5. Appellant was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the writ petition and was represented by learned counsel before the learned Single Judge. In the proceedings held on 09.11.2022, he had sought for adjournment to file counter-affidavit. However, learned Single Judge observed that Special Deputy Collector (TW) -cum-Sub- Collector, Bhadrachalam had already directed the concerned Tahsildar to enquire into the allegations and thereafter, to submit report. Therefore, this Court directed the Special Deputy Collector ::3::
-cum- Sub-Collector to complete the process of enquiry by giving due notice to the appellant and thereafter to take a decision within a period of six months.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the land was granted to the appellant by the State Government way back in the year 1977-78. The industrial unit of the appellant is in place for the last more than four decades. That apart, respondent No.1 is a retired government servant, who has no connection or interest in the land in which the industrial unit of the appellant is operational. Had an opportunity been granted to the appellant by the learned Single Judge, appellant could have raised such objection.
7. However, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the order passed by learned Single Judge is an innocuous one and cannot be construed to be adverse to the appellant. All that learned Single Judge has directed is for completion of the process of enquiry by the Special Deputy ::4::
Collector(TW) -cum- Sub-Collector and in the process to give due opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
8. After considering the rival submissions made at the bar, we are of the view that though the order passed by the learned Single Judge may appear to be innocuous, the effect of the said order may have far reaching consequences insofar the appellant is concerned. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant to file counter-affidavit, more so, when such a request was made. This Court has held on a previous occasion that issuance of notice and affording an opportunity of hearing by the authority cannot be a substitute for notice and hearing by the writ court. Just because an authority is directed to issue notice and hearing to the affected party cannot be a good enough reason for a writ court not to hear the affected party before disposing of the writ petition. An order of the Court which may appear to be innocuous may have far reaching consequences.
9. That being the position, we are of the view that the matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for a ::5::
fresh decision after giving due opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties to file their respective pleadings.
10. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26010 of 2022 and remand the matter to the file of the learned Single Judge having roster to hear the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the contesting parties.
11. Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 21.02.2023 LUR