Telangana High Court
Butham Vamshikrishna vs State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT APPEAL No.244 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Laxminarayana, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. S.Sharat Kumar, learned counsel who
has entered appearance for respondent No.5.
2. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge
disposing of W.P.No.20258 of 2021 filed by respondent
No.5.
3. Be it stated that respondent No.5 had filed the related
writ petition seeking implementation of the order dated
01.02.2021 passed by the District Collector, Mancherial.
The facts relatable to the writ petition as narrated by the
learned Single Judge in the order dated 06.09.2021 read as
under:
"A perusal of the record discloses that
challenging the mutation proceedings issued by
respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar, Kotapally, in favour
of respondent No.5, the petitioner has filed an appeal
before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional
Officer, and the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed
an order on 09.03.2018 canceling the mutation in
favour of respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the same,
respondent No.5 has filed a revision petition before
the respondent No.2-District Collector. In the
meantime, the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, has been repealed by
the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass
Books Act, 2020 (for short, 'Act No.9 of 2020') and the
file was transferred to the Special Tribunal constituted
under the provisions of Act No.9 of 2020. The Special
Tribunal vide order dated 01.02.2021 dismissed the
revision petition affirming the order dated 09.03.2018
passed by the respondent No.3.
Though the Special Tribunal has dismissed the
revision petition on 01.02.2021, the said order has not
been challenged till date. Further, as per Section 16(2)
of Act No.9 of 2020, the order passed by the Special
Tribunal shall be implemented at the earliest.
Therefore, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that
ends of justice would be met if the writ petition is
disposed of directing the respondent No.4 - Tahsildar,
Kotapally, to implement the order dated 01.02.2021,
passed by the Special Tribunal, at the earliest."
4. On the above factual background the writ petition
was disposed of directing respondent No.4 i.e., Tahsildar,
Kotapally, to implement the order dated 01.02.2021 passed
by the Special Tribunal, but before passing any fresh order
he was directed to issue notice to the interested parties.
5. Grievance expressed by the appellant is that the
appellant was respondent No.5 in the writ petition; without
issuing notice to the appellant and without hearing the
appellant, the writ petition filed by respondent No.5 was
disposed of. He has further referred to the notice dated
06.12.2021 issued by the Tahsildar and submits that the
Tahsildar has already taken a view, that too without
hearing the appellant, on the strength of order of the
learned Single Judge dated 06.09.2021.
6. Relevant portion of the order dated 06.09.2021 reads
as under:
"Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Kotapally, to
implement the order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the
Special Tribunal, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to
mention that the respondent No.4, before passing any
orders, shall put all the interested parties on notice. A
copy of the order passed, if any, shall be
communicated to the parties."
7. From a perusal thereof, we find that the learned
Single Judge had directed the Tahsildar to implement the
order dated 01.02.2021, but before doing that, to put all
the interested parties on notice and to hear them. Be it
stated that the order dated 01.02.2021 was passed by the
Special Tribunal dismissing the revision petition filed by
the appellant against the order dated 09.03.2018 passed
by the Revenue Divisional Officer setting aside mutation
proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar.
8. On due consideration, we do not find any error or
infirmity with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
Though, ideally, appellant ought to have been put on notice
before passing the final order, since the final order did not
adversely affect the appellant; rather the Tahsildar was
directed to issue notice and to hear the appellant before
passing the order, no interference is called for in the order
of the learned Single Judge.
9. Insofar the notice issued by the Tahsildar is
concerned, if the appellant is aggrieved by the said notice
on account of misconstruing the order dated 06.09.2021, it
is open to the appellant to challenge the said notice in an
appropriate forum.
10. Subject to the above, writ appeal is dismissed.
11. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
04.07.2022
vs
