Itc Limited vs Mr.Kuncham Veeraswamy
2023 Latest Caselaw 875 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
                  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
                                    W.A.No.136 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant;

Mr. Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1;

and Mr. P.Ram Prasad, learned Government Pleader for Social

Welfare representing respondents No.2 and 3.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order

dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of

the W.P.No.26010 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ

petitioner.

3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition

questioning the action of Special Deputy Collector (TW) -cum-

Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam (respondent No.3 herein) in not

disposing of LTR case filed by respondent No.1 on 25.11.2021

expeditiously.

::2::

4. The LTR case has arisen on a complaint lodged by

respondent No.1 against the land granted to the appellant for

setting up of an industrial unit, alleging that such land alienation

was in violation of Telangana State Scheduled Areas (Land

Transfer) Regulation 1 of 1959. It was contended on behalf of

respondent No.1 before the learned Singe Judge that the village in

which industrial unit of the appellant is set up, is a scheduled area

within the meaning of the Presidential Order, 1950. There is a

prohibition of transfer of land to non-tribals in scheduled areas.

Therefore, respondent No.1 had filed LTR case, which is pending.

5. Appellant was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the writ petition

and was represented by learned counsel before the learned Single

Judge. In the proceedings held on 09.11.2022, he had sought for

adjournment to file counter-affidavit. However, learned Single

Judge observed that Special Deputy Collector (TW) -cum-Sub-

Collector, Bhadrachalam had already directed the concerned

Tahsildar to enquire into the allegations and thereafter, to submit

report. Therefore, this Court directed the Special Deputy Collector ::3::

-cum- Sub-Collector to complete the process of enquiry by giving

due notice to the appellant and thereafter to take a decision within

a period of six months.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the

land was granted to the appellant by the State Government way

back in the year 1977-78. The industrial unit of the appellant is in

place for the last more than four decades. That apart, respondent

No.1 is a retired government servant, who has no connection or

interest in the land in which the industrial unit of the appellant is

operational. Had an opportunity been granted to the appellant by

the learned Single Judge, appellant could have raised such

objection.

7. However, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1

submits that the order passed by learned Single Judge is an

innocuous one and cannot be construed to be adverse to the

appellant. All that learned Single Judge has directed is for

completion of the process of enquiry by the Special Deputy ::4::

Collector(TW) -cum- Sub-Collector and in the process to give due

opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

8. After considering the rival submissions made at the bar, we

are of the view that though the order passed by the learned Single

Judge may appear to be innocuous, the effect of the said order may

have far reaching consequences insofar the appellant is concerned.

In the circumstances, learned Single Judge ought to have granted an

opportunity to the appellant to file counter-affidavit, more so,

when such a request was made. This Court has held on a previous

occasion that issuance of notice and affording an opportunity of

hearing by the authority cannot be a substitute for notice and

hearing by the writ court. Just because an authority is directed to

issue notice and hearing to the affected party cannot be a good

enough reason for a writ court not to hear the affected party before

disposing of the writ petition. An order of the Court which may

appear to be innocuous may have far reaching consequences.

9. That being the position, we are of the view that the matter is

required to be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for a ::5::

fresh decision after giving due opportunity of hearing to the

contesting parties to file their respective pleadings.

10. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 09.11.2022 passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26010 of 2022 and remand

the matter to the file of the learned Single Judge having roster to

hear the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to all

the contesting parties.

11. Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated

above. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 21.02.2023 LUR