THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27887 OF 2023
ORDER : (ORAL)
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to direct
respondent No.1 - the Additional Collector (Formerly Joint
Collector) to reopen the appeal in case No.F1/3458/2003 filed under Section 24 of the Telangana Inams Abolition Act, 1955, (for short 'the Act, 1955') and dispose of the same on merits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appeal in case No.F1/3458/2003 filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 was dismissed for default and the order is contrary to the judgment dated 11.06.1970 of this Court in Jammula Atchayya Vs. RDO 1. Learned counsel submitted that another connected appeal relating to the same subject land is pending before respondent No.1 against the order of Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division in Case No.L/5136/2012; The issue involved in both the appeals is one and the same and the pending appeal in Case No.F1/1764/2018 can be 1 AIR 1971 AP 307 2 taken up along with the appeal of the petitioner (F1/3458/2003) if restored. It is stated that the subject land of Acs.4-20 guntas in Sy.No.368/1 of Attapur Village, Rajendranagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is classified as "Mafi Inam". W.P. No.9375 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner, Mr. Paramananda Das for correction of revenue records. The same was allowed by order dated 24.03.1995 directing Mandal Revenue Officer to correct the records as prayed for. Pursuant thereto order dated 14.09.1995 in ROR/B/146/Attapur/94 was passed and wrong and erroneous entries showing the land as "Sarkari Poramboke" was corrected as "Inam land" i.e., "Mafi Inam" and the name of the inamdar i.e., Khatedar Mr. Paramananda Das S/o Ramchal Das was incorporated in the revenue records including in the Pahani for the year 1973-74 which covers crucial date i.e., 01.11.1973 for determining the occupancy rights under the Act, 1955.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that application was submitted by the petitioner before respondent No.2
- Inam Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights certificate (ORC) in respect of the subject lands which was dismissed by order dated 3 03.02.2018 in Case No.L/5136/2012 holding that the land is Government land by relying on the incorrect entries in revenue records which already have been corrected pursuant to the order dated 24.03.1995 in W.P. No.9735 of 1994. That against the said order dated 03.02.2018 an appeal in Case No.F1/1764/2018 is still pending before respondent No.1 wherein the petitioner is one of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner, Mr. Paramananda Das expired on 21.02.2012. However, the petitioner was not aware of the appeal filed by his father till recently and he was advised to file restoration application. The same was filed along with L.R. petition on 30.06.2023 before respondent No.1, but the said application was not considered. It is reiterated by the learned counsel that appellate authority does not have any power to dismiss the case for default.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents and perused the material on record. 4
6. In Jammula Atchayya Vs. RDO cited supra, it was heldas under:
"When no specific provision empowering the special tribunal to dismiss an application or appeal, as the case may be for default has been made under the special enactment or the rules made thereunder, it must be construed that such tribunal has no jurisdiction to dismiss an application or appeal for default. Admittedly, tree (sic there) is no specific provision entitling the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the appeal for default. Hence he has a statutory duty and obligation to dispose of the appeal on merits notwithstanding the absence of the parties or their counsel. For all these reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default notwithstanding the absence of the parties or their counsel. On the same analogy, the Tahsildar also is not committee (sic. competent) to dismiss an application before him for default of appearance of the parties or their counsel."
In view of the above facts and circumstances and law laid down by this Court, the writ petition is allowed directing respondent No.1 to re-open the appeal in Case No.F1/3458/2003 filed under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, and dispose of the same on merits along with appeal in Case No.F1/1764/2018. There shall be no order as to costs.
5
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.
_______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J Date: 06.10.2023 MS