M/S Prime Properties A ... vs Pilli Mallaiah, And 10 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 324 Tel

 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                         AND
      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                             W.A.No.131 of 2020

JUDGMENT:      (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


      This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22032 of 2019

dt.24-01-2020.


         2.   Heard Sri Satish Parasaran, learned Senior

Counsel, representing Sri Avinash Desai, counsel for the

appellant, Sri C.S.Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel,

representing Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahamood, Counsel for

respondent Nos.1 to 6 and the learned Government

Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.7

to 10.

3. It has been contended by the appellant that

the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow

W.P.No.22032 of 2019 and was pleased to declare the

action of the 5th respondent in not issuing Regularization

Certificate under Section 5-A (4) of the Telangana Right of

Records and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 to the Writ

Petitioners pursuance to the regularization proceedings

issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer vide proceedings

dt.09-06-1995 as arbitrary and illegal and was pleased to

grant consequential direction to the 5th respondent to 2 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.131 of 2020

issue Regularization Certificate to the petitioner within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order in respect of land admeasuring Ac.74.30 gts. in

Sy. No.1007 of Kukatpally village and Mandal, Medchel-

Malkajgiri District and also update manual records

electronically.

4. The appellant had contended that the

appellant was not made party in the said Writ Petition

and the appellant had interest in the said lands wherein

the learned Single Judge has directed the 5th respondent

to grant Regularization Certificate in favour of the Writ

Petitioners. Learned counsel for the appellant had

further contended that the learned Single Judge has

referred the case of the appellant in para-9 of the order

which reads as follows:

"It is also contended that an application for passing of final decree was filed and an Advocate- Commissioner was also appointed to demarcate the respective shares; that M/s. Prime Properties claiming 346 acres filed a claim petition which was dismissed and was also confirmed by the High Court and later in the Supreme Court; that the claim of the said entity was also rejected by the High Court in a Review Application in C.R.P.No.6697 of 2004 on 23.02.2018, that this was challenged in the Supreme Court and on 01.10.2018, the Supreme Court directed 3 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.131 of 2020

maintenance of status quo with regard to possession."

and the learned counsel for the appellant had further

contended that learned Single Judge has also referred to

the appellant in paras-12 and 21 which read as follows:

"12. The counsel for petitioners also relied upon order dt.04.06.2019 in W.P.No.22896 of 2018 and batch wherein certain documents executed by M/s. Prime Properties, Hyderabad in respect of lands in Survey No.1007 of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Malkajgiri Medchal District were not permitted by this Court and a finding was recorded therein that the land in Survey No.1007 of Kukatpally Village continued to be agricultural land and did not cease to be agricultural land.

21. It is then contended that M/s. Prime Properties was claiming title to Hashim Ali, who had succeeded allegedly against Mir Fazeellath Hussain in O.S.No.122 of 1973 on 22.11.1973 before the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and there was a compromise between them. Again, no documents were filed by the respondents to prove this contention."

5. Learned counsel for the appellant had

contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have

insisted that the Writ Petitioners must implead the

appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant had further

contended that the learned Single Judge had allowed the

Writ Petition preferred by the unofficial respondents

without hearing the appellant who had interest in the 4 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.131 of 2020

said property which is situated in Sy. No.1007 of

Kukatpally village and Mandal, Medchel-Malkajgiri

District. Therefore, orders passed by the learned Single

Judge is adversely effecting the rights of the appellant.

Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that the appropriate orders be passed in the

Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders of the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.22032 of 2019 dt.24-01-2020

and let the matter be remanded back to the learned

Single Judge and let the learned Single Judge hear the

appellant also in the Writ Petition filed by the unofficial

respondents and after giving opportunity to the

appellants, let the learned Single Judge decide the case

in accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6

had contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly

passed orders in favour of the contesting respondents by

allowing the Writ Petition and the subject land of

Ac.74.30 gts. in Sy. No.1007 of Kukatpally village and

Mandal, Medchel-Malkajgiri District is not being claimed

by the appellant and the appellant has no interest and

claim in respect of the said land. Therefore, there are no

merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

                             5                        HCJ & AKS,J
                                                W.A.No.131 of 2020




      7.   This   Court   having   considered   the       rival

submissions made by the parties is of the considered

view that the learned Single Judge has referred to the

appellant's case in paras 9, 12 and 21 of the judgment

and gave a finding in para-21 of the judgment that no

documents were filed by the respondents to prove their

contention. When appellant is not made party, the

question of filing documents on behalf of appellant would

not arise. Without expressing any opinion on merits, this

Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice

would be met, if the order of the learned Single Judge

passed in W.P.No.22032 of 2019 dt.24-01-2020 is set

aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Single

Judge as the said orders were passed without impleading

the appellant who have interest and claim in respect of

property in the subject land and accordingly the matter is

remanded back to the learned Single Judge in the

interest of justice and the learned Single Judge is

directed to adjudicate the matter after giving opportunity

to the appellant as well as contesting respondents and

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Since

the dispute between the parities is of very old dispute,

the learned Single Judge is requested to hear the main

Writ Petition itself and pass appropriate orders as 6 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.131 of 2020

expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of

six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

8. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is

disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 31.01.2022 kvr