THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.394 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Mr. V.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.Sridhar, learned
counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner. We have
also heard Ms. Chandana Adamala, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Revenue Department (Stamps & Registration) for respondents No.2 and 3.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.36420 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent No.1 filed the related writ petition assailing the inaction of Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri, 2 Medchal-Malkajgiri District in considering her representations dated 18.06.2019 and 26.08.2022 with regard to rectification of her name in the encumbrance certificate.
4. Without entering into the merits of the case, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the Sub-Registrar to consider and dispose of the representations of respondent No.1 dated 18.06.2019 and 26.08.2022 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the writ proceedings. Appellant has a claim to the land in respect of which respondent No.1 sought the relief. In this connection, though suit and first appeal preferred by the appellant have been dismissed, the related second appeal is pending before this Court. Had an opportunity been granted to the appellant, all these facts would have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge which are 3 relevant for a full and complete adjudication of the writ petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that order of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be adverse to the appellant. Learned Single Judge had only directed the Sub-Registrar to consider the representations of respondent No.1. However, as a matter of fact, learned counsel has submitted that following the order of the learned Single Judge, Sub-Registrar had considered the representations of respondent No.1 but has rejected the same.
7. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the matter should be remitted back to the file of the learned Single Judge having roster to rehear the matter and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
8. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 and remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge having roster to rehear the writ petition and 4 thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
9. Writ appeal is accordingly allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 28.03.2023 vs