Sri Sisir Chalasani, vs Sri C.Manikyam
2023 Latest Caselaw 1548 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                   AND
            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


          WRIT APPEAL Nos.458 and 469 of 2022


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


       This order will dispose of W.A.Nos.458 and 469 of

2022.


2.     We have heard Mr. D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned

Senior Counsel representing Mr. N.Venkateswara Rao,

learned      counsel      for     the     appellant;      Mr.       Vedula

Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel for respondent

No.1 in W.A.No.458 of 2022 and for respondents No.1 to 35

in W.A.No.469 of 2022; and Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official

respondents.

3. Both the writ appeals arise out of the common order

dated 28.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge

disposing of W.P.No.35463 of 2012 and batch.

4. While W.A.No.458 of 2022 arises out of W.P.No.33752

of 2017, W.A.No.469 of 2022 arises out of W.P.No.33531 of

2017.

5. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated

28.06.2021 disposed of the writ petitions in the following

manner:

As seen from the record, two conflicting orders came to be passed by the revisional authority - one dismissing certain batch of revisions by upholding the orders of the appellate authority, and the subsequent order allowing certain batch of revisions by setting aside the very same orders of the appellate authority.

Admittedly, the revisional authority passed the common orders on 24.09.2012 dismissing the revisions and confirming the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer in Appeal Nos. F3/3635/2011-F3/36/ROR/2011 and batch. Subsequently, another revisional authority has allowed the remaining revisions setting aside the very same orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer passed in F3/3642/2011-F3/43/ROR/2011 dated 15.05.2017 without realizing that his predecessor has dismissed the appeals filed by the parties vide order dated 24.09.2012.

Though the learned counsels appearing in the respective writ petitioners tried to support the respective

orders passed by both the revisional authorities, as disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case and there is a need to go through the revenue records to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the rival contentions raised by the contesting parties, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits or demerits of the case. This Court is of the opinion that the revisional authority is the best suited to deal with the various contentions raised by the parties on the basis of the record. It would not be appropriate for this Court to go into these disputed questions of facts. Moreover, there are two conflicting orders in respect of the same common order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

Therefore, the impugned orders in file Nos.F3/3635/2011-F3/36/ROR/2011, F3/3636/ 2011- F3/37/ROR/2011, F3/3637/2011-F3/38/ROR/2011, F3/3638/2011-F3/39/ROR/2011, F3/3639/2011- F3/40/ROR/2011, F3/3640/2011-F3/41/ROR/ 2011, F3/3641/2011-F3/42/ROR/2011, F3/3642/2011-F3/ 43/ROR/2011 to F3/3650/2011-F3/51/ROR/2011 and F3/1400/ 2011-F3-12/ROR/2011 are hereby set aside and the matters are remanded to the revisional authority to deal with all the cases together and pass a comprehensive order, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Joint Collector, Sanga Reddy District at Sangareddy, to transfer the revisions along with the

connected record to the Special Tribunal, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Special Tribunal shall dispose of the revisions in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. It is needless to observe that the Special Tribunal, before passing any orders in the appeal, shall put all the interested parties on notice. A copy of the orders that may be passed by the Special Tribunal shall be communicated to the parties.

6. Thus, learned Single Judge directed the Joint

Collector, Sangareddy District, to transfer the revision

petitions along with the connected record to the Special

Tribunal within two weeks and thereafter directed the

Special Tribunal to dispose of the revision petitions in

accordance with law within a period of three months.

7. The two writ appeals were filed assailing the aforesaid

direction of the learned Single Judge by contending that

Special Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to deal with

the claim of the appellant inasmuch as the land claimed by

the appellant was purchased by the appellant long ago and

is not agricultural land.

8. The writ appeals were heard on 23.03.2023 fixing

today for pronouncement of order. While concluding the

hearing, the Bench had ordered that since pronouncement

of order was fixed on 10.04.2023, Special Tribunal would

not pronounce any final order in the appeals registered

before it as per directions of the learned Single Judge.

9. Interlocutory application has been filed by Phanithi

Tirupataiah, respondent No.1 in W.A.No.458 of 2022

seeking an opportunity of hearing as for various reasons

mentioned in the interlocutory application, it is contended

that learned counsel for respondent No.1 could not be

present in Court at the time of hearing. It is further

mentioned that Special Tribunal had heard the appeals

and finally on 16.03.2023 had pronounced the final order.

This fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court.

Similar application has also been filed in W.A.No.469 of

2022.

10. Along with the aforesaid interlocutory applications

sets of material papers have been filed.

11. We find that Special Tribunal, Sangareddy District

had passed an order on 16.03.2023 disposing of

F3/21/2022, F3/22/2022, F3/23/2022, F3/24/2022,

F3/25/2022, F3/27/2022, F3/33/2022 and F3/37/2022.

12. By the aforesaid order, Special Tribunal has held as

follows:

In view of the findings noted above and after verifying the relevant documents and records this Tribunal finds no reasons to interference with the impugned orders of the RDO-Sangareddy dated 09.03.2009 in respect of the subject matter lands as they are on sound lines a in accordance with law/Tenancy Act/Apex Court judgments. This Tribunal has also observed that, the claims made by the revision petitioners and the respondents No.5 to 7 in Case No.F3/21/2022, respondents No.10 to 12 in Case No.F3/24/2022 & F3/32/2022, respondents No.5 to 7 in Case No.F3/26/2022, F3/31/2022 & F3/33/2022 are not in accordance with the provision of the AP (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and they are purely civil nature (title dispute) because of multiple transactions on one and the same land and hence they are at liberty to approach competent Civil Court to perfect their title if any exists. The Tahsildar Ramachandrapuram is directed to restore possession to the legal heirs of the original PTs as per the provision of the Tenancy Act and also directed to send proposals in

the Dharani portal for issue of e-PPB after receiving application from respondents No.1 to 4 & 8 in Case No.F3/21/2022, respondents No.1 to 9 & 13 in Case No.F3/24/2022, respondents No.1 to 4 in Case No.F3/26/2022, respondents No.1 to 4 & 8 in Case No.F3/31/2022, respondents No.1 to 9 in Case No.F3/32/2022, respondents No.1 to 4 in Case No.F3/33/2022 (original PTs / Legal Heirs) herein.

The case is disposed of accordingly.

13. Thus, according to the Special Tribunal, order dated

09.03.2009 of the Revenue Divisional Officer does not

suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. Claims

made by the revision petitioners and others were found to

be not in conformity with the provisions of the Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands

Act, 1950. Special Tribunal has found the dispute to be

purely civil in nature because of multiple transactions.

While directing the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram, to

restore possession to the legal heirs of the original

protected tenants besides sending proposals for uploading

in the dharani portal and also for issuance of e-pattadar

pass books, aggrieved parties have been granted liberty to

approach the civil court.

14. Since Special Tribunal had decided the appeals on

the direction of the learned Single Judge, we refrain from

adjudicating the writ appeals on merit. We are also not

inclined to interfere with the order of the Special Tribunal

in the absence of any specific challenge to the same. We,

however, grant liberty to the appellant to avail his legal

remedy as directed by the Special Tribunal or to challenge

the order of the Special Tribunal, if the appellant feels

aggrieved.

15. To enable the appellant to avail his legal remedy, we

direct that order of the Special Tribunal dated 16.03.2023

shall not be given effect to for the next fifteen (15) days

commencing from today. Thereafter, it is for the

appropriate forum to pass such order as may be deemed fit

and proper. If no remedy is availed of by the appellant

within the aforesaid period of fifteen (15) days from today,

needless to say, order of the Special Tribunal shall come

into force. Since we have not decided anything on merit,

all contentions are kept open.

16. Both the writ appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 10.04.2023 vs