THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
W.A.Nos.229, 231 & 234 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. B.Narsimha Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant (Mr. Mohd. Suleman); Ms. Y.Kavya Shree, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents No.1
to 3; Mr. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.A.No.229 of 2023; Mr. B.Murali Manohar, learned counsel representing Ms. V.Dyumani, learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 7 in W.A.No.229 of 2023; respondents No.4 to 6 in W.A.No.231 of 2023; and respondents No.4 and 5 in W.A.No.234 of 2023.
2. These intra-court appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.Nos.43067 of 2022; 26705 of 2022 and 4002 of 2020 filed by the appellant as the petitioner, and also imposing cost of Rs.50,000 on the appellant.
::2::
3. Appellant filed (i) W.P.No.43067 of 2022 assailing the legality and validity of the proceedings dated 22.11.2022 of Collector, Mahabubnagar District (respondent No.2 in WA.Nos.229 and 231 of 2023) (briefly 'Collector' hereinafter) appointing a committee for submission of report in respect of land in Survey Nos.405 and 406 of Kodgal village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (briefly 'subject land 1' hereinafter); (ii) W.P.No.26705 of 2022 assailing the action of the Collector and respondent No.3- Tahsildar, Jadcherla Mandal (briefly 'Tahsildar" hereinafter) in not continuing to record the name of the appellant as pattadar and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.5.11 guntas at Kodgal Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (briefly 'subject land 2' hereinafter); and (iii) W.P.No.4002 of 2020 assailing the action of Tahsildar in issuing order dated 08.02.2020 rejecting the application of the appellant dated 13.11.2019 for implementation of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar District (respondent No.2 in W.A.No.234 of 2023) (briefly 'RDO' hereinafter) and Joint ::3::
Collector, Mahabubbagar in respect of entry in the revenue record in respect of subject land 2.
4. Before we advert to proceedings of the Collector dated 22.11.2022, we may mention that appellant had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.27841 of 2022 assailing the action of the Collector and Tahsildar in keeping his application dated 26.09.2018, for restoration of his name in the record of rights in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.36.19 guntas in survey Nos.405 & 406 situated in Kodgal Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (subject land 3), pending. Learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition vide the order dated 04.07.2022 by giving liberty to the appellant to submit an online application for the said relief on the Dharani Portal, with the clarification that on such submission of online application, Collector shall consider the same in accordance with law by duly putting all the persons interested on notice including respondent No.4 and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
::4::
5. Following the aforesaid order, Collector issued the proceedings dated 22.11.2022. We find therefrom that Collector has constituted a team of officers to inspect the spot jointly and thereafter to furnish detailed report with reference to the records along with physical possession; the team of officers was also instructed to intimate the concerned parties atleast one week prior to their visit and thereafter, to furnish factual report. The team comprises of the following officers:
1. The District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar;
2. The Assistant Director (Survey and Land Records), Mahabubnagar;
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar;
4. The Tahsildar, Jadcherla Mandal.
6. Assailing the above proceedings, the related writ petition being W.P.No.43067 of 2022 came to be filed.
7. Learned Single Judge vide the common judgment and order dated 18.01.2023 took the view that there was suppression of material facts by the appellant. While OS.No.4 of 2013 in respect of subject land 2 was pending on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla, appellant has instituted O.S.No.22 of 2020 to ::5::
declare him as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e., subject land 1. Learned Single Judge also noted that appellant had executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Mr. G.David Shanth Raj (respondent No.4 in W.A.No.229 of 2023), who was claiming title over the suit schedule property on the basis of the said GPA. For this, appellant had received an amount of Rs.42,42,000.00. Appellant's contention that said GPA was cancelled by way of legal notice dated 21.08.2012 was not accepted by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the same could not have been done by him on a legal notice. Therefore, writ petitions were dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- payable by the appellant to Gorige Pullaiah and Gorige Parvathalu (respondents No.4 and 6 in W.A.No.229 of 2023 and respondents No.4 and 5 in W.A.No.231 and 234 of 2023).
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that as a matter of fact, there was no suppression of material facts by the appellant; all facts which were relevant for adjudication of the writ petitions were placed on record. He further submits that findings ::6::
rendered by the learned Single Judge would have a direct bearing on the pending civil suits as the learned Single Judge had gone beyond the subject matter of the writ petitions. In the circumstances, he also submits that imposition of cost is not at all justified.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 as well as learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 6 submit that there is no error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge; learned Single Judge has rendered a reasoned finding which should not be disturbed in the present intra-court appeals.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that there was no illegality or infirmity in the proceedings dated 22.11.2022 of the Collector. By the said proceeding, Collector has only constituted a team of officers to inspect the site and thereafter to furnish factual report based on which he would be in a better position to pass an appropriate order as directed by this Court in the previous round of ::7::
litigation. Therefore, no fault can be found with the approach of the Collector.
11. Insofar the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.01.2023 passed in the related writ petitions is concerned, we are of the view that since OS.No.22 of 2020 and OS.No.4 of 2013 are pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar and learned Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla respectively, we clarify that observations made by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions shall not influence the proceedings of the two civil suits and those suits shall be decided on the basis of pleadings and evidence tendered before the respective civil courts as those observations were made in the context of adjudication of the writ petitions which were before the learned Single Judge.
12. That apart, we are of the further view that while learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petitions, in the ::8::
facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty may not be warranted.
13. Accordingly, we set aside the cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge on the appellant vide the common judgment and order dated 18.01.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.43067 of 2022; 26705 of 2022 and 4002 of 2020.
14. Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 24.02.2023 LUR