Telangana High Court
Meera Bai W/O Gangadhar vs The District Collector, ... on 23 March, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.267 and 279 of 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeals are arising out of the order dated
25.07.2007
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.12069 and 12087 of 2005 and two other connected
matters.
The facts of the cases reveal that the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Madnoor Mandal, assigned Government lands, by an
order dated 08.06.1996, to an extent of Acs.3.00 in Survey
No.183/83 of Awalgaon Village in favour of Meera Bai (writ
petitioner in W.P.No.12069 of 2005), Acs.4.00 in Survey
No.183/84 of Awalgaon Village in favour of Pushpa Bai (writ
petitioner in connected matter), Acs.3.00 in Survey No.84/13 of
Shekapur Village in favour of Ravi Kumar (writ petitioner in
W.P.No.12087 of 2005) and another extent of Acs.3.00 in Survey
No.84/G/3 of Shekapur Village in favour of Rekha Rani (writ
petitioner in connected matter) and in those circumstances, the
assignees came up before the learned Single Judge stating that
they were not granted any opportunity of hearing by the
Revenue Divisional Officer while conducting enquiry in the
matter and the cancellation of assignment on the ground that
they are residents of some other village is bad in law. The
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions on the
ground that no prejudice has been caused, even if opportunity
of hearing was not given by the Revenue Divisional Officer while
passing the impugned order and the impugned order was rightly
passed as the assignees were residents of some other village.
Learned Government Advocate has fairly conceded before
this Court that opportunity of hearing was not given to the
appellants/writ petitioners. At this stage, he has stated before
this Court that let a date of appearance be fixed before the
Revenue Divisional Officer and after hearing the present
appellants, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall be passing an
appropriate order in accordance with law.
Resultantly, without expressing any opinion on merits,
the order dated 02.06.2005 cancelling the assignment as well as
the order passed by the learned Single Judge, are hereby set
aside, confining only to the appellants herein. The appellants
are directed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer on
28.03.2022 and the Revenue Divisional officer, after hearing the
appellants and after taking into account all the grounds raised
by them, shall be free to pass appropriate order in accordance
with law, within a period of sixty days from today.
There is an order of status quo continuing in the present
writ appeals and therefore, for a period of sixty days, or till an
order is passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, whichever is
earlier, the order of status quo shall continue.
With the aforesaid, the writ appeals stand allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
23.03.2022
JSU
