THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.A.No.897 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Heard Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants; Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government
Pleader for Revenue representing the official respondents; and
Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. This intra court appeal is filed against an order
dated 09.06.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge by which a
writ petition preferred by the appellants viz., W.P.No.7317
of 2013 has been dismissed.
3. The parties shall be referred to as per their rankings
before the learned Single Judge.
4. Facts
giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that, according to respondent No.4, his father viz., Chitta Laxman Rama Murthy was owner of lands admeasuring ::2::
Acs.6.08 guntas and Acs.4.37 guntas bearing Survey Nos.129 and 132 respectively situated in Sirsa Village, Kottapalli Mandal, Adilabad District. Respondent No.4 filed a representation dated 10.11.2011 to the Revenue Divisional Officer that the name of the petitioners had been entered in the revenue records as pattadars of the lands in question. Accordingly, the patta certificates issued in favour of the petitioners were sought to be cancelled. Thereupon, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dated 12.12.2013, cancelled the patta certificates issued in favour of the petitioners and remitted the matter to Tahsildar for enquiry.
5. The petitioners, thereupon, filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.7317 of 2013, in which an interim order was passed on 19.03.2023. However, the Tahsildar passed consequential order on 25.02.2013 cancelling the patta certificates issued in favour of the petitioners.
::3::
6. Petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in W.P.No.14001 of 2013 on the ground that the order dated 25.02.2013, passed by the Tahsildar, has been antedated. The petitioners claim that their grandfather had purchased the subject property in the year 1959. Thereupon, an application was filed before the Tahsildar in the year 2005 seeking regularization of the sale deed executed on 09.11.1959. In order to consider the application filed by the petitioners, the procedure prescribed under Section 5-A of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (briefly 'the 1971 Act' hereinafter) was required to be followed, which was, admittedly, not followed. Order dated 25.02.2013, passed by the Tahsildar is in violation of Section 5-A of the 1971 Act as no notice was put to the transferors. The Revenue Divisional Officer, therefore, remitted the matter to the Tahsildar. The order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
::4::
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appeal was not filed by respondent No.4 in the prescribed form and the same was also not within limitation; that the learned Single Judge has not taken into account the decision in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy v. Joint Collector, Cuddapah and others 1; and that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the dispute with regard to title can be adjudicated only in a civil suit.
8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
9. Admittedly, the proceeding leading to the order of the Tahsildar dated 25.02.2013 has been carried out in violation of Section 5-A of the 1971 Act. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer remitted the matter to the Tahsildar to take a decision afresh. In other words, an order of remand has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. Needless to state 1 2009(1) ALD 248 ::5::
that the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all such contentions, which have been raised before us, in the proceeding before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar shall hear the parties and shall take a fresh decision within a period of three months from today.
10. To the aforesaid extent, order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.78317 of 2023 is modified.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 19.09.2023 LUR