Smt Gantedi Anasuya vs State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 633 Tel

Item No.6
      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                    AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


                     WRIT APPEAL No.159 of 2020

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


1.     The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and

order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing

of W.P.No.4449 of 2020 filed by her praying inter alia for setting

aside the order dated 07.02.2020, passed by the respondent No.2/Joint

Collector, Jagitial District and for declaring the 13-B and 13-C

Certificate dated 23.02.2020, issued in favour of the respondent No.5

in respect of the land measuring Ac.1.17 guntas in Survey Nos.1310/3

and 4 of Korutla Revenue Village Sivar, Korutla Revenue Mandal,

Jagitial District, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has observed

that the main grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner was that while

remanding the matter to the respondent No.4/Tahsildar for addressing

arguments afresh, the respondent No.2/Joint Collector has directed

that a 13-B Certificate be issued, which ought not to have been done

and the matter ought to have rested at the point of directing the

respondent No.4/Tahsildar to conduct a de novo enquiry after giving

an opportunity of hearing to both parties. As a result, the observations

made by the respondent No.2/Joint Collector regarding issuance of

13-B Certificate afresh, was directed to be deleted. Instead,

respondent No.4/Tahsildar was directed to conduct a de novo enquiry

after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties and thereafter,

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

3. After addressing arguments for some time, Mr. C. Naresh

Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner states that his

client does not wish to press the present appeal and is willing to

appear before the respondent No.4 in terms of the impugned order, for

a de novo enquiry to be conducted. However, he requests the interim

order dated 16.03.2020 whereby, it was directed that the

appellant/writ petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject

property, may be extended for a reasonable period to enable her to file

an appropriate application before the respondent No.4/Tahsildar.

4. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of along with the

pending applications, if any. The interim order dated 16.03.2020 shall

continue to operate for a period of four weeks. If the appellant/writ

petitioner does not move an application within the aforesaid timeline

or if such an application is moved but relief is declined to her by the

respondent No.4 before expiry of four weeks, then the interim order

shall stand automatically vacated. Needless to state that if aggrieved

by the orders that may be passed by the respondent No.4, the

appellant/writ petitioner and the respondent No.5 shall be entitled to

seek appropriate legal recourse, as contemplated in the Statute.

5. The parties are directed to appear before the respondent

No.4/Tahsildar on 24.03.2021. They shall make their submissions and

final orders shall be passed thereafter, preferably within four weeks

from the date of conclusion of final arguments.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

01.03.2021 JSU