THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.235 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Bethi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for
the appellants and Mr. Ravi Kumar Vadlakonda, learned
counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner. We have also
heard Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents No.2 to 6.
2. This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.34483 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to mutate her name in the revenue records pertaining to agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.0001 guntas in Survey No.287/B/3 and Ac.1.1999 guntas situated in Survey No.287/2/3 total extent of Ac.1.20 guntas situated at Rayakal Village, 2 V.Saidapur Mandal, Karimnagar District (subject land). It was contended before the learned Single Judge by respondent No.1 that her vendor's name was entered in the revenue records and therefore she was entitled to get her name mutated in the revenue records in respect of the subject land. Third parties had filed review petition under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, which was allowed in favour of respondent No.1 on 19.12.2019. Thereafter, respondent No.1 had submitted online application for entering her name in the revenue record in respect of the subject land and for issuance of the pattadar pass book. But, no decision was taken thereon.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue had submitted that if the online application was filed by respondent No.1, the same would be considered by the revenue authorities in accordance with law. In view of such submissions, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the District Collector, Warangal, to consider the online application of respondent No.1 by 3 putting respondents No.6 to 8 in the writ petition on notice.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants were arrayed as respondents No.6 to 8 in the writ proceedings. Without issuing notice to them and without giving them an opportunity of hearing, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition. He submits that in respect of the subject land, predecessor of the appellants
- Ravula Tirupathi Reddy, had filed W.P.No.2282 of 2020 assailing the order of the Joint Collector dated 19.12.2019 and seeking other related reliefs. In that writ petition, respondent No.1 has been arrayed as respondent No.8. By order dated 05.02.2020, this Court had granted interim stay. Had the appellants been given an opportunity of hearing, they could have placed these facts before the learned Single Judge.
6. We have already observed in a number of appeals that subsequent issuance of notice and hearing by the statutory authority cannot be a substitute for notice and 4 hearing by the writ court. We feel that appellants are necessary parties to the proceedings in W.P.No.34483 of 2022 and they ought to have been heard before disposal of the said writ petition.
7. That being the position, we set aside the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.34483 of 2022 and remand the matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge having roster to decide the writ petition afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the contesting parties.
8. Writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 03.03.2023 vs