Smt. Ramasahayam Madhavi vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1630 Tel

Items No.29 - 31



      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                               AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


                    W.A.Nos.287 and 276 of 2020
           and I.A.No.1 of 2020 in/and W.A.No.283 of 2020

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.      W.A.No.287 of 2020 is directed against an order dated

21.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.866 of

2014 wherein, the appellant had prayed for issuance of a writ of

certiorari for declaring the order dated 24.12.2013, passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam District, in ROR Appeal

No.A3/7252/2013 along with the communication dated 31.12.2013 of

the respondent No.4, as arbitrary and violative of her fundamental

rights. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge

by observing that the order under challenge is the decision of the

appellate authority dated 24.12.2013, under the Telangana Rights in

Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and against the very same

proceedings of the same petitioner, W.P.No.6507 of 2014 was filed,

which was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2014.

2. W.A.No.276 of 2020 has been filed against the order dated

06.03.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6507 of

2014.

3. W.A.No.283 of 2020 has been filed against the order dated

04.03.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4739 of

2020 whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.4 herein

for issuing directions to the official respondents to implement the

order dated 24.12.2013, was disposed of with a direction to the

official respondents to implement the said order by conducting

enquiry in accordance with law.

4. W.P.No.6507 of 2014 was filed by the appellant questioning an

order dated 24.12.2013, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in

an appeal preferred by the respondent No.4. The court had turned

down the challenge laid to the said order on the ground that the

Revenue Divisional Officer had found that there were several

interpolations in the pahanies and 1B Register and the order of

mutation was passed without issuing a notice to the respondent No.4,

(appellant before the Revenue Divisional Officer). As a result, all the

entries were directed to be cancelled and the matter was remitted to

the Tahsildar to conduct a fresh enquiry after affording an opportunity

of hearing to both parties and thereafter to issue pattadar pass books to

the eligible persons. Observing that an opportunity of hearing was

duly granted to both sides, the court had declined to entertain

W.P.No.6507 of 2014.

5. It was the observations made in aforesaid order that has

persuaded the learned Single Judge to dismiss W.P.No.866 of 2014

filed by the appellant.

6. On enquiring from learned counsel for the appellant whether

the order dated 24.12.2013 was challenged by his client by preferring

an appeal, he states that the said order has attained finality. In view of

the aforesaid position, the subsequent petition filed by the appellant is

squarely hit by the principles of res judicata. Any attempt on the part

of the appellant to raise the same issue that has already been

adjudicated upon in an earlier writ petition, can only be treated as

gross abuse of the process of law. The writ petition was rightly

dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

7. Not satisfied by the said order, the present appeals have been

filed which, on the face of it, are misconceived, as learned counsel for

the appellant is not in a position to dispute the stand taken by the other

side that the order dated 06.03.2014 has attained finality. Not only

that, we are informed that the appellant has been appearing before the

Tahsildar after the matter was remanded by the Revenue Divisional

Officer and the case was listed before the Tahsildar as recently as

yesterday. Only on account of the submission of the appellant that

she has filed the present appeals, was the matter adjourned by the

Tahsildar.

8. We may also note that the submission made by Mr. C.V.

Bhaskar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the

Tahsildar is no longer competent to entertain the pending proceedings

that were remanded back by the Revenue Divisional Officer, is found

to be meritless, particularly when the order dated 06.03.2014 was

passed, the unamended Act was in operation. Therefore, the Tahsildar

shall comply with the said order, as it stands.

9. The present appeals and the Interlocutory Application are

dismissed in limine as meritless with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten

thousand only) imposed on the appellant in each appeal. The said

costs shall be tendered to the respondent No.4 herein before the

Tahsildar on the next date of hearing, without which the appellant

shall not be heard. As we have been informed that it was at the

insistence of the appellant that the Tahsildar did not take the

proceedings further and he has not fixed any date, it is deemed

appropriate to direct the parties to appear before the Tahsildar on

22.06.2021, for further proceedings. The pending applications in

these appeals, if any, are also dismissed.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

14.06.2021 vs/pln