Telangana High Court
Jannu Prasangi vs The State Of Telangana on 8 June, 2021
Bench: P Naveen Rao
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
+ WRIT PETITION NO. 12722 OF 2021
% 08.06.2021
# Jannu Prasangi S/o.Kornel,
Aged about 66 years, occ: Agriculture,
R/o.T.R.T. 16-12-28, Industrial Colony,
Warangal City and District.
..PETITIONER
VS.
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
..RESPONDENTS.
! Counsel For The Petitioner: Sri M.A.Saleem.
^ Counsel For Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for
Revenue
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? CITATIONS :
-2-
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
********
WRIT PETITION No.12722 of 2021
Between :
Jannu Prasangi S/o.Kornel,
Aged about 66 years, occ: Agriculture,
R/o.T.R.T. 16-12-28, Industrial Colony,
Warangal City and District.
.. Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
.. Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 08.06.2021
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.12722 of 2021
Date:08.06.2021
Between:
Jannu Prasangi S/o.Kornel,
Aged about 66 years, occ: Agriculture,
R/o.T.R.T. 16-12-28, Industrial Colony,
Warangal City and District.
.....Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
-4-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.12722 of 2021
ORDER :
Heard Sri M.Saleem, learned counsel for petitioner and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. Petitioner claims to have purchased land to an extent of
Ac.5-32 guntas in survey Nos 464 and 465 of Patelgudem village,
Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, Janagaon District. Having found that
the said purchase was illegal, as the land was assigned to landless
poor persons and in accordance with the provisions of the
Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977
(for short "the Act,1977"), assigned land cannot be alienated,
proceedings were initiated under the Act, 1977 and the orders were
passed resuming the land. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner
preferred appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.) under
Section 4-A of the Act, 1977 and the same was also dismissed.
3. Against the order of the appellate authority, remedy of
revision is available under Section 4-B of the Act, 1977. Instead of
preferring revision under Section 4-B of the Act, 1977, petitioner
preferred revision under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land
and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short "the Act, 26 of 1971").
As revision was filed under Section 9 of the Act 26 of 1971, it was
transferred to the Special Tribunal constituted under Section 16 of
the Act 9 of 2020. The Special Tribunal, having found that the
revision was preferred under the Act, 1971, instead of preferring
revision under the Act, 1977, dismissed the revision.
4. Challenging the decision of Special Tribunal, petitioner filed
WP.No.8874 of 2021. Having regard to the provisions of the Act,
1977 and the Act 9 of 2020, this Court dismissed writ petition
affirming the view taken by the Special Tribunal. However, Court
granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision
under the Act, 1977, if it is otherwise available to him.
5. After the dismissal of writ petition, petitioner again went
before the Special Tribunal, this time filing the revision under
Section 4-B of the Act, 1977. Alleging that Special Tribunal is not
receiving said revision causing hardship to the petitioner, this writ
petition is filed.
6. The Act, 1977 deals with assignment of Government land to
landless poor persons, protection of interests of assignees,
prohibits alienation of land assigned to landless poor persons and
incidental thereto. Whereas, the Act 26 of 1971 deals with record
of rights on agricultural lands, issue of pattadar passbook and title
deed. Thus, though they compliment each other, but both
enactments deal with separate aspects of a land. Section 4-B of
the Act, 1977 provided remedy of revision against the decision of
R.D.O. as appellate authority on matters concerning cancellation of
assignment etc., flowing out of the provisions of the Act, 1977. The
Act 26 of 1971 provided remedy of appeal to the R.D.O. against the
decision of Tashildar and remedy of revision against the decision of
R.D.O. and in a given case even against the decision of Tahsildar
on matters concerning record of rights on agricultural lands.
7. In supersession of the Act, 26 of 1971, the Act 9 of 2020 is
promulgated. The Act 9 of 2020 dispensed with remedy of appeal
and revision against the decision of Tahsildar. Thus under the
new Act, there is no provision of appeal or revision. In order to
deal with appeals and revisions already filed and pending by the
time Act 9 of 2020 was notified, Section 16 envisaged constitution
of the Special Tribunal. In terms of the said provision, the
Government constituted the Special Tribunal comprising of District
Collector and Additional District Collector, who was earlier called
as Joint Collector. Pending appeals and revisions were transferred
to the Special Tribunal.
8. In accordance with the provisions of the Act 9 of 2020, the
Special Tribunal is required to consider only pending appeals and
revisions filed under the Act 26 of 1971. It is not vested with
power to entertain fresh appeals or revisions under the repealed
Act 26 of 1971. Perforce, it has no jurisdiction to entertain appeal
or revision under any other enactment. Therefore, the petitioner
has again erroneously went before the Special Tribunal. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the Tribunal has erred in not receiving the
revision sought to be filed by the petitioner by invoking the
provisions of Section 4-B of the Act, 1977.
9. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at
liberty to avail remedy already granted in the earlier writ petition.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________
P.NAVEEN RAO, J
08.06.2021
Nvl
Note: LR copy to be marked: Yes
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.12722 of 2021
Date: 08.06.2021
Nvl
