Telangana High Court
T.V.Veeraiah, vs The Joint Collector, 5 Others on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.A.No. 881 of 2009
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants, and Mr. J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for respondent
No.6.
2. It is submitted that respondent No.6- K.Chandra Reddy has
expired and therefore, it is necessary to bring on record the legal
heirs of respondent No.6.
3. In view of the long pendency and the order which we
propose to pass, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of
the appeal.
4. We have gone through the judgment dated 04.06.2009 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.3987 of 2000 filed by
respondents No.4, 5 and 6 as the writ petitioners.
5. Respondents No.4, 5 and 6 had filed the writ petition to set
aside the order dated 26.07.1999 passed by respondent No.1- Joint
::2::
Collector, Ranga Reddy District granting occupancy certificate to
the appellants. The facts were summed up by the learned Single
Judge in the following manner:
"It appears, petitioners and unofficial respondents are
tenants of original Inamdar. On 7.9.1979, Occupancy
Right Certificate was conferred under Inams Abolition
Act in favour of petitioners' paternal uncle and the land
to an extent of Ac.2-10 guntas in Sy.No.98 and
Ac.3-15 guntas in Sy.No.99 situated at Alwal village and
Municipality, Ranga Reddy district had fallen to the share
of petitioners in the family partition. The second
respondent also passed orders dated 5.9.1989 for
mutating the names of petitioners as occupants in respect
of the above lands. According to the father of
respondents 4 and 5 Mr.Veeraiah, the land to an extent of
Ac.0-28 guntas, which constitutes part of Survey No.100,
was in fact physically located in Sy.No.99. Therefore, he
filed appeal before the first respondent on 3.8.1995 being
aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent.
The first respondent vide impugned order dated 26.7.1999
in Case No.F1/6387/95 while allowing the appeal, gave a
finding that on the basis of panchanama purported to
have been conducted by the surveyor and the statement
said to have been issued by the inamdar, that this land of
Ac.0-28 guntas is physically confirms part of Sy.No.99
and not Sy.No.100 and, thus declared that the said land of
Ac.0-28 guntas in Sy.No.99 which was construed to be
::3::
fallen in Sy.No.100 belongs to Veeraiah. Aggrieved
thereby, the present writ petition is filed.
6. Thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of by the order
dated 04.06.2009 in the following manner:
Admittedly, the Occupancy Right Certificate was
issued in the year 1979 in respect of land of
Ac.2-10 guntas in Sy.No.98 and Ac.3-15 guntas in
Sy.No.99 situated at Alwal village and Municipality, Ranga
Reddy district and the petitioners were shown as
possessors. Therefore, the second respondent, after
partition of properties between the family members of
petitioners passed orders in the year 1989 for registering
the names of petitioners as occupants. When it came to
light that some land, which was in physical possession of
the respondents, was part and parcel of Survey No.99 and
not Sy.No.100, the respondents filed appeal before the
first respondent. It is unfortunate that the first
respondent has not conducted any fresh enquiry into the
matter nor ordered for survey. Simply, on the basis of
panchanama, which merely indicates that Veeraiah is in
possession of Ac.0-10 guntas of land and cultivated leafy
vegetable and in Ac.0-18 guntas existed a well, three
rooms and nine tamarind trees in Sy.No.99, held that the
said land belongs to Veeraiah. Such a casual finding
recorded by the first respondent could not have formed
part of decision of this nature. The substantial rights of
the parties have to be decided after conducting a detailed
::4::
enquiry as to revenue entries as well as survey conducted
by the competent authority. May be, the father of
respondents 4 and 5 was in physical possession of the
disputed land, but unless and until a fresh survey is
conducted in this regard as to location of land held by the
respondents 4 and 5 in the presence of petitioners as well
as respondents 4 and 5, the substantial rights of the
parties could not have been decided by the first
respondent in a casual way.
Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that
the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is
liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The matter
is remanded to the primary authority- second respondent-
Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division for
conducting fresh enquiry into the matter by appointing an
appropriate surveyor for conducting survey of land in the
presence of both the parties and after receiving report
from the surveyor, the matter shall be disposed of afresh,
as per law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the
date of receipt of this order. It is needless to mention that
this exercise is limited only to the extent of
Ac.0-28 guntas of land, which is in dispute between the
parties.
7. From the above, we find that the matter has been remanded
back to the primary authority i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chevella Division (respondent No.2 herein) for conducting fresh
enquiry by appointing appropriate surveyor for conducting survey
::5::
of land in the presence of both the parties and after receiving
report from the surveyor, the said authority was directed to pass
appropriate order within a period of eight weeks. It was clarified
that the exercise to be carried out on remand was limited only to
the extent of Ac.0.28 guntas of land, which is in dispute between
the parties.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due
consideration, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. However, we find from the case record that while admitting
the appeal on 14.07.2009, interim stay was granted. Therefore,
interim order dated 14.07.2009 is recalled.
10. Consequently, the matter stands remanded to respondent
No.2 in terms of the order dated 04.06.2009 passed by the learned
Single Judge. On remand, the legal heirs of respondent No.6 may
present themselves before respondent No.2 whereafter, the said
authority shall carry out the exercise and complete the same within
::6::
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
11. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
dismissed.
__________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_____________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Date: 13.07.2022
LUR
