Mohd. Suleman vs The State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 937 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
                         W.A.Nos.229, 231 & 234 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

       Heard Mr. B.Narsimha Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for

the appellant (Mr. Mohd. Suleman); Ms. Y.Kavya Shree, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents No.1

to 3; Mr. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in

W.A.No.229 of 2023; Mr. B.Murali Manohar, learned counsel

representing Ms. V.Dyumani, learned counsel for respondents

No.5 to 7 in W.A.No.229 of 2023; respondents No.4 to 6 in

W.A.No.231 of 2023; and respondents No.4 and 5 in W.A.No.234

of 2023.

2. These intra-court appeals are directed against the common

judgment and order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Single

Judge dismissing W.P.Nos.43067 of 2022; 26705 of 2022 and 4002

of 2020 filed by the appellant as the petitioner, and also imposing

cost of Rs.50,000 on the appellant.

::2::

3. Appellant filed (i) W.P.No.43067 of 2022 assailing the legality

and validity of the proceedings dated 22.11.2022 of Collector,

Mahabubnagar District (respondent No.2 in WA.Nos.229 and 231

of 2023) (briefly 'Collector' hereinafter) appointing a committee for

submission of report in respect of land in Survey Nos.405 and 406

of Kodgal village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (briefly

'subject land 1' hereinafter); (ii) W.P.No.26705 of 2022 assailing the

action of the Collector and respondent No.3- Tahsildar, Jadcherla

Mandal (briefly 'Tahsildar" hereinafter) in not continuing to record

the name of the appellant as pattadar and possessor of land

admeasuring Acs.5.11 guntas at Kodgal Village, Jadcherla Mandal,

Mahabubnagar District (briefly 'subject land 2' hereinafter); and (iii)

W.P.No.4002 of 2020 assailing the action of Tahsildar in issuing

order dated 08.02.2020 rejecting the application of the appellant

dated 13.11.2019 for implementation of the order passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar District (respondent

No.2 in W.A.No.234 of 2023) (briefly 'RDO' hereinafter) and Joint ::3::

Collector, Mahabubbagar in respect of entry in the revenue record

in respect of subject land 2.

4. Before we advert to proceedings of the Collector

dated 22.11.2022, we may mention that appellant had earlier

approached this Court by filing W.P.No.27841 of 2022 assailing the

action of the Collector and Tahsildar in keeping his application

dated 26.09.2018, for restoration of his name in the record of rights

in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.36.19 guntas in survey

Nos.405 & 406 situated in Kodgal Village, Jadcherla Mandal,

Mahabubnagar District (subject land 3), pending. Learned Single

Judge disposed of the said writ petition vide the order dated

04.07.2022 by giving liberty to the appellant to submit an online

application for the said relief on the Dharani Portal, with the

clarification that on such submission of online application,

Collector shall consider the same in accordance with law by duly

putting all the persons interested on notice including respondent

No.4 and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

::4::

5. Following the aforesaid order, Collector issued the

proceedings dated 22.11.2022. We find therefrom that Collector

has constituted a team of officers to inspect the spot jointly and

thereafter to furnish detailed report with reference to the records

along with physical possession; the team of officers was also

instructed to intimate the concerned parties atleast one week prior

to their visit and thereafter, to furnish factual report. The team

comprises of the following officers:

1. The District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar;

2. The Assistant Director (Survey and Land Records), Mahabubnagar;

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar;

4. The Tahsildar, Jadcherla Mandal.

6. Assailing the above proceedings, the related writ petition

being W.P.No.43067 of 2022 came to be filed.

7. Learned Single Judge vide the common judgment and order

dated 18.01.2023 took the view that there was suppression of

material facts by the appellant. While OS.No.4 of 2013 in respect

of subject land 2 was pending on the file of learned Junior Civil

Judge, Jadcherla, appellant has instituted O.S.No.22 of 2020 to ::5::

declare him as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property

i.e., subject land 1. Learned Single Judge also noted that appellant

had executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of

Mr. G.David Shanth Raj (respondent No.4 in W.A.No.229 of

2023), who was claiming title over the suit schedule property on the

basis of the said GPA. For this, appellant had received an amount

of Rs.42,42,000.00. Appellant's contention that said GPA was

cancelled by way of legal notice dated 21.08.2012 was not accepted

by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the same could not

have been done by him on a legal notice. Therefore, writ petitions

were dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- payable by the appellant

to Gorige Pullaiah and Gorige Parvathalu (respondents No.4 and 6

in W.A.No.229 of 2023 and respondents No.4 and 5 in

W.A.No.231 and 234 of 2023).

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that as a

matter of fact, there was no suppression of material facts by the

appellant; all facts which were relevant for adjudication of the writ

petitions were placed on record. He further submits that findings ::6::

rendered by the learned Single Judge would have a direct bearing

on the pending civil suits as the learned Single Judge had gone

beyond the subject matter of the writ petitions. In the

circumstances, he also submits that imposition of cost is not at all

justified.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 as well as

learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 6 submit that there is no

error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge;

learned Single Judge has rendered a reasoned finding which should

not be disturbed in the present intra-court appeals.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due

consideration, we are of the view that there was no illegality or

infirmity in the proceedings dated 22.11.2022 of the Collector. By

the said proceeding, Collector has only constituted a team of

officers to inspect the site and thereafter to furnish factual report

based on which he would be in a better position to pass an

appropriate order as directed by this Court in the previous round of ::7::

litigation. Therefore, no fault can be found with the approach of

the Collector.

11. Insofar the common judgment and order of the learned

Single Judge dated 18.01.2023 passed in the related writ petitions is

concerned, we are of the view that since OS.No.22 of 2020 and

OS.No.4 of 2013 are pending on the file of learned Senior Civil

Judge, Mahabubnagar and learned Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla

respectively, we clarify that observations made by the learned Single

Judge while dismissing the writ petitions shall not influence the

proceedings of the two civil suits and those suits shall be decided

on the basis of pleadings and evidence tendered before the

respective civil courts as those observations were made in the

context of adjudication of the writ petitions which were before the

learned Single Judge.

12. That apart, we are of the further view that while learned

Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petitions, in the ::8::

facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty may not

be warranted.

13. Accordingly, we set aside the cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed by

the learned Single Judge on the appellant vide the common

judgment and order dated 18.01.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.43067

of 2022; 26705 of 2022 and 4002 of 2020.

14. Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of.

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

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 24.02.2023 LUR