Ingu Ratan Kumar vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 4841 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                        AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                WRIT APPEAL No.348 of 2018

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



      Heard Mr. M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the

appellants; Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswara Rao, learned

Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents

No.1 to 4; Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader

for Home appearing for respondents No.5 and 6; and

Mr. G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for respondents

No.7 to 12.

2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the

order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge

disposing of W.P.No.1429 of 2018 filed by the appellants as

the writ petitioners.

3. The related writ petition was filed assailing the

endorsement made by the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri

District, dated 15.12.2017. It may be mentioned that by the

impugned endorsement, the Joint Collector declared that

respondent No.7 (since represented by his legal heirs

respondents No.8 to 12) is the rightful owner of the subject

land and was in possession thereof since 24.10.2007 as per

Government allotment vide G.O.Ms.No.1146, Revenue

(ASN-V) Department, dated 30.08.2007. Joint Collector

further clarified that respondent No.7 had every right to enter

into his land and while doing so he may take police

assistance from the concerned Station House Officer.

4. Learned Single Judge after due consideration held as

follows:

"A reading of the impugned endorsement merely shows that respondent No.7 was informed of his right to enter the land with the Police assistance and in the said process, respondent No.3 had narrated the events leading to such conclusion. The narration of facts cannot be held to be determinative of the right of the parties and if there is any dispute with regard to the rights of the parties, it is always open to the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law. So far as the opinion expressed by respondent No.3 with regard to the prima facie right of respondent No.7 to enter into the land by taking Police assistance is concerned, this Court sees no ground to interfere with the said observation or opinion. As the observation made in the last paragraph of the impugned

endorsement dated 15.12.2017 is not affecting the rights of the parties, except clarifying the position, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said endorsement. If the parties feel that their rights are affected, it is open to them to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs".

5. From a perusal of the above, it is seen that learned

Single Judge took the view that by the impugned

endorsement, respondent No.7 was only informed of his right

to enter into the land with police assistance. Narration of

facts in the impugned endorsement cannot be held to be

determinative of the rights of the parties. If there is any

dispute with regard to the rights of the parties, it is open to

them to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

Opinion expressed by the Joint Collector was with regard to

prima facie right of respondent No.7 to enter into the land by

taking police assistance. Therefore, learned Single Judge

found no ground to interfere with the impugned endorsement.

6. On appeal, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed

order dated 08.03.2018 admitting the appeal and suspending

the impugned endorsement. That apart, status quo with

regard to possession as on 08.03.2018 was directed to be

maintained. Relevant portion of the order dated 08.03.2018

reads as under.

"Prima facie, the Joint Collector lacks jurisdiction to pass the impugned endorsement or to direct the S.H.O Bahchupally to provide police protection to enter the subject land, (which the appellants-writ petitioners claim that they own and to be in possession thereof), without even putting the appellants-writ petitioners on notice, and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to suspend the impugned endorsement. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the title of either the appellant-writ petitioners, or the 7th respondent, over the subject land or as to who is in possession thereof, for these are all matters which the parties can agitate in appropriate legal proceedings before the competent Civil Court.

Suffice it to direct that status quo, with regards possession as on date, shall be maintained until further orders. The District Collector, Medchal- Malkajgiri District shall forthwith have an inspection caused of the subject land, and submit a report to this Court forthwith, and in any event within one week

from today, regarding the nature of construction already made over the subject lands. No further construction shall be raised on the subject land nor shall the parties to these proceedings alienate or create third party rights thereupon, or change the nature of the land, pending further orders."

7. Section 9 of the erstwhile Telangana Rights in Land and

Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 dealt with the power of

revision. As per Section 9, the Collector may either suo motu

or on an application made to him, call for and examine the

record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or

Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in

respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to

satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or

proprietary of any decision taken, order passed or

proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the

Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should

be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for

reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. However,

as per the proviso, no such order adversely affecting any

person shall be passed under Section 9, unless the person

had an opportunity of making a representation. Section 2(2)

of the aforesaid Act defines "Collector" to mean, Collector of a

District and includes Joint Collector.

8. From a careful and conjoint reading of Section 9 and

Section 2(2) of the aforesaid Act, it is evident that be it the

Collector or the Joint Collector, he has only the power of

revision either suo motu or on an application to examine the

regularity, correctness, legality or proprietary of any decision

taken or orders passed or proceedings made by the

sub-ordinate revenue authorities. If the Collector or the Joint

Collector feels that such decision, order or proceedings are

not in order, the same may be modified, annulled or reversed

or remitted for reconsideration after hearing the affected

persons.

9. Reverting back to the impugned endorsement, we find

that no notice was issued to the appellants, who, it appears,

have a dispute with respondent No.7 over the subject

property. Without notice and hearing, Joint Collector made

the declaration in the impugned endorsement about

respondent No.7 being the rightful owner and possessor of

the subject land and that he had every right to enter into his

land for which he may take police assistance. That apart, we

find such declaration of the Joint Collector to be wholly

unwarranted and unauthorized by law.

10. In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the

learned Single Judge dated 22.01.2018 passed in

W.P.No.1429 of 2018 as well as the endorsement dated

15.12.2017 with liberty to the parties to workout their

remedies in respect of their land dispute before the

appropriate forum.

11. Writ appeal is accordingly allowed.

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

22.09.2022 vs