Nimmala Narahari vs C.Narendranath
2021 Latest Caselaw 2919 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
                             AND
         HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
             Writ Appeal Nos.716 & 728 OF 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker
Reddy)

         Since both these appeals arising out of Common

Order dated 23.03.2018, they are being heard together

and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.


2.   These appeals are filed against Common Order dated

23.03.2018 in W.P.Nos.20585 and 20586 of 2013 by one

Nimmala       Narahari,   appellant   herein   (who     is   5th

respondent in writ petitions) against one C.Narendranath-

1st respondent in these appeals.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter

will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petitions.

It is the case of the petitioner in both these writ

petitions that one Sri Veera Mallaiah was the original

owner of different extents of land in Sy.Nos.196, 197 and

206 of Madeenaguda Village, Serilingampaly Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. The lands in Sy.No.197 was sold by

him in favour of Sri Suryanarayana Raju and five others,

by way of registered sale deed dated 14.12.1966 vide

document Nos.1170/66 and 1171/1966 and subsequently,

he sold entire lands in the Sy.Nos.196, 197 & 206 after

leaving the land towards roads at the time of execution of

documents. The said Veera Mallaiah died in the year 1975

leaving behind Sri Nimmala Narahari-5th respondent as his

legal heir. Subsequently, the 5th respondent along with his

mother sold Acs.7.00 in Sy.Nos.197 & 207 pursuant to

the agreement of sale entered by his father on

28.10.1974 as successors of the deceased. After 14 years

of death of his father, the 5th respondent applied for

succession certificate in the year 1989 in respect of

Sy.No.197 for an extent of Acs.14.09 as if his father

Veera Mallaiah did not sell the property and also without

excluding the property sold by him along with his mother

vide document No.246/1978, and the same was granted

vide proceedings in File No.B/456/89 on 30.03.1989,

which was sought to be implemented in the year 2008,

that is after lapse of 33 years. Thereafter, the 4th

respondent issued notices thrice to the petitioner-

C.Narendranath. The petitioner submitted

explanation/objections to the same and subsequently filed

W.P.No.11635 of 2009, which was disposed of on

23.06.2009 directing the 4th respondent to pass

appropriate orders after considering the objections filed

by the petitioner. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar-cum-

Deputy Collector, Serilingampally Mandal, without

considering the objections of the petitioner, issued

impugned proceedings dated 31.01.2010 ordering

mutation of the name of the 5th respondent in revenue

records for the year 2009-2010 in respect of the land to

an extent of Acs.7.00 in Sy.No.196 and Acs.4.28 guntas

in Sy.No.197 totally admeasuring Acs.11.28 guntas of

Madeenaguda Village, ignoring the fact that mutation

which was affected in favour of the petitioner and his

family members in the year 1980. One Smt.C.Laxmibai

and two others, mother and sisters of the petitioner, who

purchased a part of the property from the vendee of

Veera Mallaiah, applied for mutation, which was ordered

by the 4th respondent in File No.B/2568/2003 dated

26.05.2004 for an extent of land admeasuring Acs.4.23

guntas out of the total purchased land of an extent of

Acs.5.27 guntas in Sy.No.197 purchased under registered

sale deed No.999/1979, dated 22.05.1979. The

petitioner also obtained mutation proceedings in his

favour in respect of land to an extent of Acs.0.10 guntas

out of total purchased land of an extent of Acs.0.34

guntas, situated in Sy.No.197, under registered sale deed

No.961/1979, dated 18.05.1979 from one Sri

Suryanarayanana Raju and others, in proceedings

No.B/2583/2003, dated 26.05.2004. After noticing the

name of the 5th respondent in column No.13 of pahanies

for the years 1982-83, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, he

made an application to the 4th respondent for deletion of

the name in respect of land in Sy.No.197 on 27.09.2006,

who issued proceedings on 17.11.2006 allowing the

application and ordered for deletion of the name of the 5th

respondent. In the said proceedings, it is observed that

the entries in the pahanies of the name of the 5th

respondent was with different ink by tampering the

records and also observed that the said land was in

possession of the petitioner by the name of 'Naren

Garden'.

4. The 5th respondent filed suit in OS.No.3129 of 2006

along with I.A.No.4330 of 2006 seeking ad interim

injunction against the petitioner in respect of the land in

Sy.No.197 admeasuring Acs.6.11 guntas, was dismissed

observing that there is manipulation of records at the

instance of the 5th respondent and that he has not

approached with clean hands. Aggrieved by the orders in

I.A., the 5th respondent preferred CMA No.280 of 2008

before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga

Reddy District was also dismissed on 11.09.2009, and the

same has become final, as the 5th respondent did not

challenge the said dismissal order in CMA. Since the

proceedings by way of suit is pending before the

competent civil court, the revenue authorities-

respondents 2 to 4 are disentitled to proceed to

determine the proceedings in respect of succession

certificate or for its implementation. The petitioner and his

family members filed O.S.No.1726 of 2009 on the file of

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

seeking permanent injunction against 5th respondent and

others, wherein injunction was granted in their favour in

I.A.No.1566 of 2010 in respect of the land in Sy.No.197

admeasuring Acs.6.21 guntas situated at Madeenaguda

village, which is still subsisting. Aggrieved by the orders

of the 4th respondent granting mutation orders dated

30.08.1989 in favour of 5th respondent vide proceedings

dated 06.01.2009 in file No.B/371/2008 in respect of land

admeasuring Acs.11.28 guntas in Sy.Nos.196 and 197 of

Madeenaguda village, the petitioner preferred appeal

before the 3rd respondent, which was dismissed by him on

30.06.2012 confirming the order of the 4th respondent.

The revision filed by the petitioner against the same

before the 2nd respondent was also dismissed affirming

the order of the 3rd respondent, vide order dated

04.05.2013 and relegated the parties to approach the

competent civil court in order to examine the validity of

the documents relied on by the parties and thereafter to

approach the revenue authorities. Aggrieved by the

same, W.P.No.20585 of 2013 is filed by the petitioner.

5. The 4th respondent mutated the name of the 5th

respondent in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.1.14

guntas in Sy.No.206/1/A vide proceedings dated

15.05.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, which was

dismissed by him on 30.06.2012, against which, the

petitioner preferred revision before the 2nd respondent.

The 2nd respondent dismissed the said revision by order

dated 18.05.2013. Aggrieved by the same,

W.P.No.20586 of 2013 is filed.

6. In both the writ petitions, the 4th respondent filed

counter affidavits stating that the file bearing

No.B/456/89 containing the succession proceedings dated

30.03.1989 was not traceable, but stated that the same

was noticed in the personal register of the concerned

section that the same related to the sanction of

succession under record of rights in respect of the land in

Sy.Nos.196 and 197 of Madeenaguda village. It is further

stated that the 4th respondent granted succession

certificate to the 5th respondent merely because he is the

son of Sri Veera Mallaiah and the entries in the records

shown that of his father. Even though it is alleged that

several sale transactions took place, but none of them

have approached them for mutation of their names in

revenue records.

7. The 5th respondent has not filed any counter in both

the writ petitions.

The learned Single Judge, after considering the

material on record and after hearing both the learned

counsel, allowed the writ petitions setting aside the orders

of the 2nd respondent dated 04.05.2013 and 18.05.2013

and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for

considering the following points:

i) Whether the proceedings of succession/mutation issued in favour of the 5th respondent in File No.B/456/89 are genuine, valid and create any right for mutation in favour of 5th respondent?

ii) In view of the change of nature of the land consequent to the expansion of the city, whether the applications of the 5th respondent can be considered for mutation of his name in the revenue records in the light of detailed objections filed by the petitioner?

iii) Whether the application of the 5th respondent can be considered, in the light of the earlier orders passed by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner in File Nos.B/2568/2003 and B/2583/2003 dated 26.05.2004 and 28.05.2004 which have become final?

Since there is scramble for possession and the

civil suits are pending for injunction, it is desirable that

the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law under the provisions of the

Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,

within a period of three months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order after hearing the petitioner and the

5th respondent. The 2nd respondent shall pass orders

after perusing the records, uninfluenced by any

observations made in this order, but strictly in accordance

with the provisions of Telangana Rights in Land and

Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. In view of this order of

remand, the order of status quo granted by this Court

earlier on 23.07.2013 shall continue till orders are passed

by the 2nd respondent.

8. Counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent

reiterating the averments in the affidavit filed in support

of the writ petitions and stated that the revenue officials

have no power or authority to issue proceedings in

respect of non-agricultural lands in violation of the

provisions of the A.P.Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass

Books Act, 1971 and the appellant played fraud with the

revenue officials in obtaining succession dated 30.03.1989

vide file No.B/456/1989 and managed the appellate

authority and revisional authority in confirming the same.

Even though the fact of non availability of succession

certificate dated 30.03.1989 obtained under RTI was

informed to the 3rd respondent, he proceeded further and

assumed the jurisdiction and passed the orders, which

were impugned in the writ petitions. Since the appellant

already invoked the jurisdiction of civil court, the

authorities ought not to have entertained the application

submitted by the appellant for mutation of his name in

the revenue records. The provisions of the Act of 1971

has no application to the non-agricultural land, as such,

the revenue authorities has no such power to determine

the issue of title and sought for dismissal of the writ

appeals.

9. Counter affidavit is filed by the 5th respondent

stating that the file bearing No.B/456/1989 could not be

traced and that upon verification of inward register in the

record section, it is noticed that the file furnished by the

appellant is not genuine and correct as the subject matter

entered at Sl.No.456 of the Inward/Distribution Register

is as "20.03.1989-Petitio of Sri P.S.Babu and Rama Raju

dated 13.03.1989-in Miyapur village, Sy.No.118

correction of pahani of 1987-88-regarding. It is also

stated that at the request of the Station House Officer,

Miyapur vide letter dated 27.01.2018 seeking information

in respect of Sy.No.197, Madeenaguda, the same was

furnished vide Ref.No.C/587/2018 dated 11.01.2019. The

information also furnished to C.Narendranath

S/o.C.Balkishan vide Lr.No.B/391/2012-50, dated

10.10.2012 and also to T.Nageshwar Rao in file

No.C/03/2018-04 dated 19.01.2018 and sought for

dismissal of the writ appeal.

10. The appellant filed rejoinder to the counter

affidavit filed by the 5th respondent denying the

averments therein stating that the respondents 3 to 5

failed to produce the file No.B/456/1989 pertaining to

succession granted in favour of the appellant, which is

nothing but will disobedience and obstruction of course of

justice, punishable in law. Even though said file is not

traceable in the office of the 5th respondent, the same

could have been reconstructed. It is stated that the

deponent cannot on the basis of an entry at Sl.No.456 in

the Inward Register of the year 1989, affirm on oath that

the file B/456/1989 relating to succession certificate is not

genuine or correct. The deponent on the basis of any

entry at Sl.No.456 in the Inward Register of the Year

1989 affirm on oath that the file B/456/1989 relating to

succession certificate is not genuine or correct, as the

inward register maintains the tappal received by the

Office. The succession certificate issued in favour of the

appellant is after due enquiry, as such, it cannot be said

that the same is not genuine and that the basis for the

proceedings which came to be challenged by the 1st

respondent is file No.B/456/1989. The 1st respondent

preferred appeal before the 4th respondent questioning

the order of the 3rd respondent dated 30.01.2010 by

exaggerated his claim from Ac.6.21 guntas to Ac.11.28

guntas. The genuineness of the file No.B/456/1989 was

never doubted by the 1st respondent, but only filed an

interlocutory application about its existence in the year

2018 only in the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent.

On enquiry it is revealed that the Tahsildar and Joint

Collector who have passed the orders which are

questioned by the 1st respondent have retired, but the

RDO is still in service, who is the best person to file an

affidavit as regards the existence of file B/456/1989 and

seeks time to pursue the matter.

11. Heard Sri D.V.Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior

Counsel for Sri G.Prashanth Rao, Sri S.Rahul Reddy,

learned counsel for the 1st respondent, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for

respondents 2 to 5.

12. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits

that when allegations of fraud and fabrication of file

No.B/456/89 dated 30.03.1989 is alleged against the

appellant, the 3rd respondent has no power or jurisdiction

to decide its genuineness. The 5th respondent merely

issues proceedings No.B/371/2008, dated 30.01.2010 as

a consequential proceedings in respect of file

No.B/456/89 dated 30.03.1989 and not issued any

proceedings afresh in favour of the appellant. The

allegation of fraud and fabrication of succession certificate

was raised only in the writ petitions by the 1st respondent,

that too in the year 2018, but not stated the same before

the revenue authorities 1st respondent and it is also not

the case of the official respondents 2 to 5. Even though

the 1st respondent initially claimed Acs.6.21 in Sy.No.197

before the 5th respondent, but subsequently enlarged his

claim to Acs.14.28 gts before the 3rd respondent without

furnishing any link documents and that the 1st respondent

got mutated his name on 28.05.2004 without issuing

notice to the appellant, which is against the principles of

natural justice. The link document showing flow of title

was not filed by the 1st respondent and that even though

the 1st respondent got his name mutated on 28.05.2004

without notice to the appellant, which is procedural

illegality and cannot be sustained. The three revenue

authorities have passed their respective orders after

perusing the record and material on record more

particularly the proceedings in File No.B/456/89 dated

30.03.1989, as such, there cannot be any basis to hold

that the same was not found or untraceable and

fabricated. He also submits that the entries in revenue

records would only be relevant for the purpose of

payment of land revenue and the same would not convey

title on the basis of such entries and that the title can

only be decided by a competent civil court. As per

Section 8(2) of the Act, which specifically contemplates

that any person aggrieved as to any rights of which he is

in possession by any entry in the record of rights, may

institute a suit against any person denying or interested

to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right

under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act. IN support of

his contentions, he relied on the judgments reported in (i)

B.Pushpamma and others v. Joint Collector [2005 (1)

ALD 260] (ii) Surajbhan v. Financial Commissioner

[(2007) 6 SCC 186] and (iii) V.Goutham Rao v. Revenue

Divisional Officer [2003 (1) ALD 681].

13. On the other hand, Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned

counsel for the 1st respondent while reiterating the

counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent submits that

since the succession certificate in File No.B/456/89, dated

30.03.1989 alleged to have been issued in favour of the

appellant in respect of the subject property is not

traceable, the learned Single Judge, has rightly

considered the said issue after filing of the counter by the

5th respondent in the writ appeal, and passed the

impugned order remanding the matter to the 3rd

respondent-Joint Collector for fresh consideration. He also

submits when the 1st respondent challenged the order

passed by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar dated 30.01.2010,

seeking implementation of the succession certificate dated

30.03.1989, before the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional

Officer, but the RDO, without there being any prayer

thereto, set aside the mutation proceedings

No.B/2568/03 dated 26.05.2004 and B/2583/2003 dated

26.05.2004 in favour of the 1st respondent (writ petitioner

in the writ petition), without examining the validity of the

order passed by the Tahsildar-5th respondent herein,

which is illegal and arbitrary and on this ground alone,

these writ appeals are liable to be dismissed.

14. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing

for respondents 2 to 5 reiterated the averments in the

counter affidavit.

15. In view of above rival contentions of both the

parties, the point that arose for consideration is:

Whether the impugned common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.03.2018 in W.P.Nos.20585 & 20586 of 2013 is tenable or not?

16. In this case, it is to be seen that the crux of the

whole issue revolves around the existence and

genuineness of succession certificate in File

No.B/456/1989 dated 30.03.1989 issued in favour of the

appellant by the 5th respondent.

Admittedly, the father of the appellant i.e.,

Veeramallaiah was the original owner of different extents

land in Sy.Nos.196, 197 and 206 of Madeenaguda Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. During the

life time of said Veeramallaiah and after his demise,

several sale transactions took place in respect of lands

situated in Sy.Nos.196, 197 and206 of Madeenaguda

village, by himself and his legal heirs, who are appellant

along with his mother through registered sale deeds in

favour of third parties. He died in the year 1975.

Thereafter, after a lapse of 14 years, the appellant filed

an application for grant of succession certificate in the

year 1989, which was stated to be issued in his favour on

30.03.1989 by the then 5th respondent. It is not stated

anywhere in the pleadings either before the revenue

authorities or before the learned Single Judge as to

whether any notice was issued to the 1st respondent or

any other person, before issuing such alleged succession

certificate in favour of the appellant and the reason for

filing such an application belatedly. However, the

appellant sought to implement the said succession

certificate in his favour in the year 2008. Notices were

issued to the 1st respondent, wherein he filed elaborate

objections. When several notices were issued to the 1st

respondent, he filed writ petition in W.P.No.11635 of

2009, which was disposed of on 23.06.2009 directing the

4th respondent-Tahsildar therein to pass appropriate

orders after considering the objections filed by the 1st

respondent herein (writ petitioner in the writ petition).

Accordingly, the 5th respondent passed orders in File

No.B/371/2008, dated 30.01.2010 ordering mutation in

the name of the appellant in revenue records for the year

2009-2010 in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.7.00

in Sy.No.196 and Acs.4.28 guntas in Sy.No.197 totally

admeasuring Acs.11.28 guntas of Madeenaguda village.

17. It is pertinent to note here that before passing the

aforesaid order dated 30.01.2010, one Smt.C.Laxmibai

and others, who are the relatives of the 1st respondent

purchased a part of the property from the vendee of

Veera Mallaiah and hat on the strength of registered sale

deeds, applied for mutation of their names in the revenue

records, which was ordered by the Tahsildar in File

No.B/2568/2003, dated 26.05.2004 for an extent of land

admeasuring Acs.4.23 guntas out of total purchased land

of an extent of Acs.5.27 guntas in Sy.No.197 purchased

under registered sale deed No.999 of 1979 dated

22.05.1979. The 1st respondent also obtained mutation

proceedings in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.10

guntas out of total purchased land of an extent of Ac.0.34

guntas situated in Sy.No.197 purchased under registered

sale deed No.961 of 1979 dated 18.05.1979 from one Sri

Suryanarayana Raju and others, in proceedings

No.B/2583/2003 dated 26.05.2004. When the 1st

respondent noticed the name of the appellant in column

No.13 of pahani for the years 1982-83, 1999-2000 and

2000-2001, he applied to the Tahsildar for deletion of the

appellant on 27.09.2006, who issued proceedings dated

17.11.2006 ordering deletion of the name of the

appellant. In the said proceedings, the Tahsildar

categorically observed as follows:

"In pursuance of the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector cited, it is evident that only the petitioner Sri C.Narendranath is the Possessor and Pattadar and no other person is Pattedar or Possessor by name N.Narahari. the entry in Pahanies is with different ink, which is a tampering of record case.

Therefore, it is warranted in the circumstances to delete the name of N.Narahari from the Sy.No.197/A from the years 1982-83, 1999-2000 & 2000-01. The Record Assistant is warned not to allow any person in the Record room and keep close watch on the records."

Admittedly, the said proceedings were never

challenged by the appellant before the revenue

authorities, but filed OS No.3129 of 2006 for perpetual

injunction, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District along with I.A.No.4330 of 2006 seeking ad

interim injunction against the 1st respondent in respect of

the land in Sy.No.197 admeasuring Acs.6.11 guntas

situated at Madeenaguda, which was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred CMA

No.280 of 2008 before the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which was also

dismissed on 11.09.2009, which became final. As rightly

observed by the learned Single Judge, the crucial

document i.e., Succession Certificate dated 30.03.1989,

which is the basis for claiming right over the subject

property, has not been filed by the appellant in the suit

filed by him.

18. It is also pertinent to note that the Tahsildar-5th

respondent filed counter before this Court as well as

before the learned Single Judge stating that the file

bearing No.B/456/89 containing the succession

proceedings dated 30.03.1989 was not traceable. A

perusal of the documents Memo dated 10.10.2012 in

Lr.No.B/391/2012-50 filed by the 5th respondent goes to

show that the file No.B/456/1989 was not traceable but

on verification of personal register of B-Section for the

year 1989, the number B/456/1989 was assigned

correction of pahani in respect of sy.No.118 of Miyapur

village. In response to the RTI application filed by one

T.Nageshwara Rao, the 5th respondent issued Memo dated

19.01.2018 in file No.C/03/2018-04 stating that file

No.456 relating to subject rectification of pahani for

Sy.No.118 of Miyapur village, Serilingampally Mandal,

which was applied by P.S.Babu and Rama Raju on

13.03.1989.

19. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant that authorities concerned i.e.,

Mandal Revenue Officer-5th respondent and Revenue

Divisional Officer-4th respondent have considered the

document dated 30.03.1989 and passed the orders

affirming the succession certificate in favour of the

appellant, as such, it is the responsibility of the staff

concerned to safeguard the said document and that the

5th respondent cannot deny it's existence, having once

considered by him earlier.

20. In view of the specific averments in the counter

affidavits filed before this Court as well as before the

learned Single Judge, it is crystal clear that the succession

certificate, alleged to have been obtained by the appellant

from the 5th respondent is not traceable in the concerned

section. As already supra, the serial No.456 refers to

some other property with different name. The fact of non

availability of the succession certificate dated 30.03.1989

was also found by the trial Court while dismissing the

I.A.No.4330 of 2006 in O.S.No.3129 of 2006 on the file of

learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District, filed by the appellant for ad-interim injunction,

which was not filed by the appellant. If really, the said

document is available and is in existence, ought to have

been filed by the appellant either before this Court or

before any other forum and that the same has not seen

the light of the day and that nothing prevented the

appellant from filing atleast a copy of the same before

this Court. More over, the delay in filing application for

issuance of succession certificate after lapse of 14 years

from the date of the death of the father of the appellant in

the year 1975 is not explained anywhere and so also the

revenue authorities concerned have also not considered

the said aspect before passing impugned proceedings.

Even the 3rd respondent also did not consider the said

aspect while relegating the parties to the civil court.

While so, the 1st respondent along with his family

members filed O.S.No.1726 of 2009 on the file of III

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District

seeking permanent injunction against the appellant in

I.A.No.1566 of 2010 in respect of the land in Sy.No.197

admeasuring Acs.6.21 guntas situated at Madeenaguda

village, wherein ad interim injunction was granted, which

was not in challenge by the appellant sofar before any

forum.

21. That apart, quite surprisingly, when the 1st

respondent preferred an appeal against the order of the

Tahsildar dated 30.01.2010 before the Revenue Divisional

Officer- 4th respondent set aside the proceedings of the

mutation obtained by the 1st respondent in file

Nos.B/2568/03 dated 26.05.2004 and B/2583/2003 dated

26.05.2004 without there being any prayer to that effect

by either of the parties and dismissed the said appeal,

which is erroneous. When once the 5th respondent being

subordinate to the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector filed a

counter stating that the aforesaid succession certificate is

not traceable in the record, without verifying the

genuineness of the existence of the same, he passed the

impugned order mechanically, without application of

mind, by relegating the parties to the civil Court for

deciding the title over the subject property. The 3rd

respondent not only affirmed the orders of the 4th

respondent in respect of setting aside the mutation orders

in favour of the 1st respondent, but also committed an

error by relegating the parties to the civil court in regard

to entries in revenue records. There is no dispute with

regard to principle laid down in the judgments relied on

by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, but the

same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of

the case on hand.

22. Since learned Single Judge has considered all the issues

elaborately along with the material filed in support of the

contentions of the respective parties and came to the just

conclusion that the impugned orders dated 04.05.2013 and

18.05.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent are not tenable and

accordingly set aside the same by remanding the matter, as

such, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same, by

exercising the jurisdiction under Clause 15 of Letter Patent.

The order of status quo granted by the learned Single Judge

on 23.07.2013 shall continue till the order passed by the 2nd

respondent.

Accordingly, both these writ appeals are dismissed

confirming the Common Order passed by the learned Single

Judge dated 23.03.2018 in W.P.Nos.20585 and 20586 of

2013. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous

petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Appeals, shall stand

closed.

______________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

______________________ DR.SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

Date:21.10.2021 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

Writ Appeal Nos.716 & 728 of 2018

Date:21.10.2021

kvs