Bankatlal Bhati, vs Mandal Revenue Officer, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3830 Tel

            THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                                     and
               THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                                         W.A.No. 900 of 2006

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

          Heard Mr. D.B.Chaitanya, learned counsel representing

Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. Parsa

Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue

(Assignment) appearing for respondent No.1; and Mr. Suresh Shiv

Sagar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5.

2. On 18.07.2022, we had passed the following order.

"None appears for the appellants on call, though Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appears for respondent No.1 and Mr. Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel appears for respondents No.2 to 5.

We have gone through the judgment and order dated 27.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by respondents No.2 to 5.

Prima facie, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge to warrant interference.

::2::

This appeal is pending since the year 2006 with interim stay.

List on 22.07.2022 under the caption "for dismissal"."

3. When the case is listed today, learned counsel for the

appellants seeks adjournment to ascertain from the appellants as to

whether any live issue survives for adjudication in this appeal. In

view of what we have recorded in our order dated 18.07.2022, we

are not inclined to grant adjournment to learned counsel for the

appellants, more so, the writ appeal being of the year 2006.

4. This writ appeal has been filed assailing the legality and

validity of the order dated 27.06.2006 passed by the learned Single

Judge disposing of writ petition Nos.20647 of 2004 and 3243

of 2005. The present appeal pertains to writ petition No.3243

of 2005.

5. Appellants as the petitioners had filed the related writ

petition seeking a direction to the official respondents to quash the

proceedings dated 25.08.2004 of the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, in respect of Survey No.11 ::3::

(old)/Survey No.46 (new) admeasuring Acs.4.29 guntas situated at

Palamakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal in Ranga Reddy District.

Relevant facts have been noted by the learned Single Judge in the

following manner:

"The petitioners in W.P.No.20647 of 2004 claim to be the successors in title of one Mallela Kishtaiah. Alleging that Kishtaiah was a protected tenant and that they were dispossessed from the land, the petitioners therein filed an application under Section 32 as well as Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'). By proceedings dated 25.08.2004, the Mandal Revenue Officer while granting succession in their favour directed to induct them into possession in respect of the land in Survey No.46 situated at Palamakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, they filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to implement the said order purportedly passed under Sections 32 and 40 of the Act. After receiving notices ordered by this Court, respondent Nos.4 to 7 (in W.P.No.20647 of 2004) filed W.P.No.3243 of 2005 seeking invalidation of the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 25.08.2004, on grounds more than one."

::4::

6. Thereafter, learned Single Judge noted that the dispute was in

respect of land in Survey No.46 (old Survey No.11) situated at

Palamkole Village, Shamshabad Mandal in Ranga Reddy District.

The genesis of the dispute was recorded by the learned Single Judge

as under:

"One Panthangi Rama Swamy was the pattadar and the landholder. He fell in arrears of excise to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the land admeasuring Acs.13.12 guntas in Survey No.46 was auctioned. One Bandaru Rajaiah purchased it in the public auction and the District Collector, Hyderabad, issued a sale certificate under Section 38 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, on 23.03.1965 in his favour. It is on record that the said Rajaiah sold the land under a registered sale deed dated 11.09.1981 in favour of one Jaffar Bin Salam and seven others, who in turn sold the land to the petitioners under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1995. The petitioners allege that they constructed farmhouses on the land and raised mango garden besides cultivating paddy in part of the land. On the other hand, respondent Nos.2 to 5 (the legal heirs of Kishtaiah), who claim to be the protected tenants, claim that being legal heirs of Kishtaiah, they are entitled for grant of succession ::5::

and restoration of possession. Their version was accepted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, who incidentally also invited objections from the petitioners. After considering the objections, the Mandal Revenue Officer recorded a finding that the protected tenant has already surrendered an extent of Acs.4.07 guntas in Survey No.46 and accordingly issued order for restoration of possession in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.4.29 guntas."

7. After adverting to the rival contentions and considering the

materials on record, learned Single Judge took the view that there

are disputed questions of fact, which should be considered by the

Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana

Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (briefly 'the Act'

hereinafter). Accordingly, appellants were given liberty to file

appeal within a period of one week whereafter, the appellate

authority was directed to dispose of the appeal within eight weeks

by giving notice to the appellants. Till such exercise was completed,

it was directed that respondents No.2 to 5 should not be

dispossessed from the land in question.

::6::

8. Relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge

dated 26.06.2006 reads as under:

"A plain reading of the above would show that by the date the said communication was addressed, the application filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 or Laxmamma and four others was pending before the Mandal Revenue Officer. This would throw some doubt with regard to passing of the impugned order dated 25.08.2004, whereby and whereunder respondent Nos.2 to 5 were granted succession as well as an order of restoration in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.4.29 guntas. This calls for an enquiry. To do so, the appellate authority would be the best suited.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case at this stage. All the questions and submission noticed hereinabove shall have to be considered by the Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Act as and when an appeal is preferred by the petitioners. The petitioners may file the appeal within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when such appeal is filed, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, shall take up the appeal, and after giving notices to respondent Nos.2 to 5, dispose of the appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the ::7::

appeal. Till such exercise is completed by the Joint Collector, the writ petitioners shall not be dispossessed."

9. We do not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by

the learned Single Judge. No substantive rights of the appellants

have been infringed or affected by the aforesaid order of the

learned Single Judge. We fail to understand as to how appellants

can have any grievance against such an order. Therefore, no case

for interference is made out.

10. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

11. Consequently, interim order passed by this Court

on 04.09.2006, which was made absolute on 13.10.2006, stands

recalled.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_____________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 22.07.2022 LUR