Telangana High Court
Dussa Bikshmaiah vs Revenue Employees Cooperative ... on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.662 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Bandi Sai Vamshi, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for
respondent No.1. We have also heard
Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswara Rao, learned Government
Pleader appearing for respondents No.3 to 5.
2. Appellants before us were respondents No.5 and 6 in
the related writ petition, being W.P.No.17710 of 2021.
Respondent No.1, as the writ petitioner, had filed the
related writ petition questioning the order of respondent
No.6 i.e., National Commission for Backward Classes,
dated 05.08.2021 directing the District Collector &
Magistrate, Nalgonda District, to provide all assistance, if
requested, to demarcate and takeover the patta land
admeasuring Ac.1.19 guntas in Survey No.330 of
Gollaguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. It
appears that there is a land dispute between the appellants
on the one hand and respondent No.1 on the other hand
for which appellants have instituted O.S.No.168 of 2016
pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at
Miryalguda. During the pendency of the civil suit,
appellants also approached respondent No.6, whereafter
the impugned order dated 05.08.2021 was passed.
Assailing this order, respondent No.1 filed the related writ
petition.
3. Learned Single Judge framed the question for
consideration as to whether respondent No.6 has the
jurisdiction to decide civil and property disputes?
4. After considering the pleadings and an order dated
02.02.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.11761 of 2021 and batch which dealt with power
and jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission, learned
Single Judge held that the ratio laid down in the said
decision is squarely applicable to respondent No.6 as well.
Under Article 338B(5) of the Constitution of India,
respondent No.6 has the mandate for safeguarding social
and educationally backward classes, to enquire into
specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights
etc., and to make recommendations as to the measures to
be taken by the State Governments for protection and
welfare of socially and educationally backwards classes.
Respondent No.6 does not have the jurisdiction to decide
title issues. Accordingly, learned Single Judge set aside
the order dated 05.08.2021 and allowed the writ petition.
5. We have carefully perused the order passed by
respondent No.6 dated 05.08.2021 as well as the previous
communication dated 21.06.2021. When respondent No.6
was aware of pendency of civil suit, which is reflected in
the aforesaid communication, it ought not to have issued
the impugned direction which, in any view of the matter, is
beyond its jurisdiction.
6. Therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in
setting aside the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2021.
However, we make it clear that rival claims to title will be
decided in O.S.No.168 of 2016 and any observations made
while disposing of the writ petition and this writ appeal
would not influence the pending civil suit.
7. Subject to the above, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
17.10.2022
vs
