Mora Padma vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2014 Tel

               * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

                + WRIT PETITION No.15861 of 2020

% 06.07.2021


# Mora Padma W/o.Narsimha,
Aged about 57 yrs, Occu : Agriculture,
Bacharam Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District & another


                                             ..... Petitioners

         And

$ The State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

                                             ..... Respondents



! Counsel for the petitioner    : Sri Ch.Venkat Raman


Counsel for respondents          : Assistant Government Pleader
                                   for Revenue
< Gist                          :

> Head Note                     :

? Citations                     :
                                 -2-



        HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                      HYDERABAD
                         ********
             WRIT PETITION No.15861 of 2020

Between:

Mora Padma W/o.Narsimha,
Aged about 57 yrs, Occu : Agriculture,
Bacharam Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District & another


                                             ..... Petitioners

                                    And

The State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.
                                              ..... Respondents


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED                : 06.07.2021


SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

1.    Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers :     Yes / No
      may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

2.    Whether the copies of judgment may be :     Yes / No
      marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3.   Whether Their Lordship wish to           :   Yes / No
     see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
                                      -3-


          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO


                WRIT PETITION No.15861 of 2020

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :

"...an order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings No.J/1320/20129 dated 08.06.2020, without following order passed by this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.No.27577 of 2018, dated 06.08.2018 directing the 3rd respondent for hearing both ORC Case and the ROR act together and dispose them in accordance with law, pending before him, whereas the inaction of the 3rd respondent in disposing of the case in respect of Occupancy Rights in respect of lands bearing Sy.Nos.193 and 194, admeasuring Ac.2.06 guntas and Ac.2.28 guntas respectively, situated at Bacharam Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 4 (1) of the A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Act No.VIII of 1955), confirming the Occupancy Rights Certificate earlier issued in Form-III, under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the A.P.(T.A) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and set aside the same, and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to pass orders as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.27577 of 2018, dated 06.08.2018 and pass such other order or orders..."

2. Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

3. According to the averments in the writ petition, 1st petitioner

is the owner of Ac.0.39 guntas spread over Sy.Nos.193 & 194 of

Bacharam Revenue Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, having purchased the same in the year 2001 from

different vendors. The 2nd petitioner is the owner of Ac.0.19 Cents

spread over Sy.Nos.193 & 194 of Bacharam Revenue Village,

Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased

the same from different owners. Petitioners claim to have applied

for granting Occupancy Right Certificates (ORCs) under Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short

'the Act, 1955') and without granting ORCs to the petitioners, the

same was granted to unofficial respondents on 30.04.2011.

Aggrieved by the same, petitioners instituted W.P.Nos.3041 and

3004 of 2012. These writ petitions were disposed of granting

liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal and further

directions were also issued. Accordingly, the District Collector-2nd

respondent issued notices to the Inamdars and after hearing them,

he sets aside the order of Revenue Divisional Officer-3rd respondent

and directed to conduct fresh enquiry under the Act. Accordingly,

the Revenue Divisional Officer initiated fresh exercise. He in-turn,

directed the Tahsildar-4th respondent to conduct enquiry and to

produce the relevant documents pertaining to the case. In the

parallel proceedings, the Tahsildar was trying to issue pattadar

passbooks and title deeds to the 5th respondent and others.

Objections were filed by the petitioners before the Revenue

Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, requesting them not to entertain

mutation request.

4. Ignoring the objections, the pattadar passbooks and title

deeds were issued to the 5th respondent and others. Aggrieved by

the mutation exercise undertaken by the 4th respondent,

W.P.No.27577 of 2018 was filed. This Court having noticed that

petitioners therein have remedy of appeal, granted liberty to the

petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal and as the Court was

informed that application filed to grant ORCs was pending with the

Revenue Divisional Officer, the Court also observed that

application can be made before the Revenue Divisional Officer to

hear ROR Appeal as well as application to grant ORC together and

to decide the issues. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer

exercising his powers under the Act, 1955 passed final orders on

08.06.2020 confirming the ORCs earlier granted to unofficial

respondents. This order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is

challenged in this writ petition.

5. Though petitioners have remedy of appeal against the

decision of Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 24 of the Act,

1955 this writ petition is instituted contending that as directed by

this Court in W.P.No.27577 of 2018, petitioners requested the

Revenue Divisional Officer to hear ROR Appeal filed under the

Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (Act

26 of 1971) and the application to grant ORC together, but without

dealing with the ROR Appeal, only the application to grant ORCs

was considered and the same is illegal.

6. From a reading of the order in W.P.No.27577 of 2018, it is

seen that the Court did not direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to

hear both of them together. The Court only granted liberty to the

petitioners therein to request the Revenue Divisional Officer to

hear them together.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that a Revenue Divisional

Officer is a multifaceted authority vested with quasi-judicial

powers under several enactments, more particularly, enactments

dealing with various aspects of agriculture land. He was the

appellate authority in the Appeals arising out of the decision made

by the Tahsildar under the Act 26 of 1971. He is the original

authority in considering applications for grant of ORC under the

Act, 1955. He is also vested with similar such powers of original

jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction under various other statutes.

Though the person may be one, but when he exercises the

jurisdiction under various other statutes, he is an independent

person and has to deal with the issue coming before him

independently, having regard to the law governing concerned

subject.

8. Thus, application to grant ORC and appeal against mutation

arise under two different statutes. Merely because authority to deal

with both matters is same the order made by the Revenue

Divisional Officer in exercise of power vested in him under the Act,

1955 cannot be invalidated, merely on the ground that he failed to

consider the Appeal pending before him, under the Act 26 of 1971

while considering the ORC application.

9. Be that as it may, the Act 26 of 1971 is superceeded by the

Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (Act 9

of 2020). Act 9 of 2020 has dispensed with remedy of appeal and

Revision. However, in order to deal with Appeals or Revisions, filed

under the Act 26 of 1971 and pending as on the date of coming

into effect the Act 9 of 2020, Section 16 of Act 9 of 2020 envisages

constitution of Special Tribunals. Accordingly, Government

constituted Special Tribunals to deal with the Appeals and

Revisions which were made, when the Act 26 of 1971 was in force,

and stood transferred to Special Tribunals. The Special Tribunal is

vested with jurisdiction only to deal with the pending Appeals and

Revisions under the Act 26 of 1971 and not competent to deal with

any other issue arising out of any other enactment including

appeals arising out of the Act, 1955. Thus, while the appeal filed

by the petitioner against granting mutation in favour of unofficial

respondents has to be considered by the Special Tribunal, the

Special Tribunal cannot consider the application to grant ORC,

filed under the Act, 1955. Therefore, even if contention of petitioner

is accepted, it cannot be remanded to hear both of them together.

10. Further against the decision of Revenue Divisional Officer

granting ORC remedy of appeal is provided under Section 24 of the

Act, 1955. It is an effective and efficacious remedy. The Appellate

Authority can go into all aspects concerning claim for or against

ORC. Without availing the said remedy, this writ petition is filed.

As the Court found that merely because the Revenue Divisional

Officer has not considered the ROR Appeal filed under the Act 26

of 1971, while deciding ORC application cannot be said as vitiated

on that ground and since remedy of appeal is an effective and

efficacious remedy, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ

petition.

11. Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners

to avail the remedy of appeal against the decision of Revenue

Divisional Officer granting ORC vide orders dated 08.06.2020.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 6th July, 2021

Note :

L.R. copy to be marked B/o.

Rds

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.15861 of 2020

Date:06.07.2021

Rds

W L.R. copy