Telangana High Court

Reena Mathur vs The State Of Telangana on 27 February, 2023

Bench: K.Lakshman

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                WRIT PETITION No.441 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Mr. M.V. Rajkumar Gabreil, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. In view of the nature of relief sought, this writ petition is

disposed of at the admission stage dispensing with notice to

respondent Nos.6 to 8.

3. The petitioner herein had filed a revision petition under

Section - 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971

(for short 'ROR Act, 1971') with respondent No.3 challenging the

order in Appeal No.B/884/2018, dated 04.08.2018 passed by

respondent No.5. When the petitioner filed the aforesaid revision on

22.10.2022, respondent No.3 refused to receive and consider the said

revision on the ground that there is no provision in the Telangana

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short 'ROR

Act, 2020') to entertain the revision under Section - 9 of the ROR Act,

1971 filed by the petitioner and that the ROR Act, 1971 is repealed

KL,J W.P.No.441 of 2023

and, therefore, they cannot receive and decide the aforesaid revision.

Therefore, the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

order dated 04.08.2018 was passed by respondent No.5 and as on the

date of passing the said order, ROR Act, 1971 was in force and ROR

Act, 2020 came into force w.e.f. 29.10.2020. Therefore, the revision

filed under Section - 9 of the ROR Act, 1971, is maintainable.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for

Revenue, on instructions, would submit that there is no provision

under the ROR Act, 2020 and, therefore, the petitioner herein cannot

file a revision by invoking the provisions of Section - 9 of the ROR

Act, 1971.

6. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the issue to be

decided by this Court is:

Whether the revision filed by the petitioner under

Section - 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 challenging the order

dated 04.08.2018 passed in appeal No.B/884/2018 by

respondent No.5 is maintainable or not?

KL,J W.P.No.441 of 2023

7. Admittedly, as on the date of order dated 04.08.2018 in

appeal No.B/884/2018 passed by respondent No.5, ROR Act, 1971

was in force. ROR Act, 2020 came into force w.e.f. 29.10.2020. It is

also not in dispute that in ROR Act, 2020, there is no provision to file

revision, like Section - 9 of the ROR Act, 1971. But, at the same time,

the petitioner cannot be remediless if he is aggrieved by the order

dated 04.08.2018.

8. In this context, it is apposite to refer to Section - 8 of the

Telangana General Clauses Act, 1897 and the same is extracted as

under:

"Where any Act, to which this Chapter applies, repeals any other enactment, then the repeal shall not,-

(a) affect anything done or any offence committed, or any fine or penalty incurred or any proceedings begun before the commencement of the repealing Act; or

(b) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

(c) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered under any enactment so repealed; or

(d) affect, any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

(e) affect any fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or

KL,J W.P.No.441 of 2023

(f) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed.

9. In view of the above, it is the specific case of the petitioner

that her father-in-law was the absolute owner of the land admeasuring

Acs.2-10 guntas in Survey No.141, situated at Gundalpally Village,

Shivampet Mandal, Medak District. He died long back leaving her

husband as his sole legal heir. The petitioner's husband died on

06.08.2020 leaving behind herself and his son as his legal heirs. Her

father's-in-law name was also mutated in revenue records in respect of

the subject property which was deleted suddenly in the year 2019

without following due procedure laid down under law. On enquiry,

she came to know about the proceedings in Appeal No.B/884/2018,

dated 04.08.2018 passed by respondent No.5 and obtained the same

under Right to Information Act, 2005. Therefore, there is delay in

filing the aforesaid revision.

KL,J W.P.No.441 of 2023

10. In Bishambhar Nath Kohli v. State of Uttar Pradesh1,

the Apex Court held that appeal filed invoking the provisions of the

Repealed Act, challenging the order passed by an Authority which is

appealable under the provisions of the Repealed Act. The relevant

portion in the said judgment is as under:

".....The use of the expression "subject thereto" in the commencement of the positive part of Section 58(3) cannot attribute to the previous operation of the repealed statute an overriding effect so as to deprive the authorities constituted under the repealing Act of their power to entertain appeals or revision applications, which they possess by the express enactment that the acts done or actions taken are deemed to have been done under the statute. To attribute to the positive part of Section 58 (3) the meaning contended for by the appellants would result in denying to the repealing statute the full effect of the fiction introduced by the Parliament that is, acts done or actions taken since the repealing Act would be subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the authority having power under the Act, but not the acts deemed to be done or actions deemed to be taken...."

11. The said principle was also reiterated in Bant Singh Gill v.

Shanti Devi2. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:

"The saving clause in sub-section (2) of Section 57 makes it clear that the present suit, which was pending under the Act of 1952, was to be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of that Act, though, under the first proviso, the court deciding the suit was required to have regard to the provisions of the Act of 1958.

. AIR 1966 SC 573

. AIR 1967 SC 1360

KL,J W.P.No.441 of 2023

Consequently, when deciding the question whether that pending suit had abated or not, the Court was still functioning as a court seized of jurisdiction under the Act of 1952 over the pending suit, though, in deciding that suit, the court had to have regard to the provision contained in Section 50 (2) of the Act of 1958. In thus applying the provision of Section 50(2) of the Act of 1958 to the suit pending before it, the Court was still acting under the Act of 1952, and the order passed for abatement or refusing to abate the suit and to continue its trial was an order under the Act of 1952 under which the Court was still continuing to exercise its jurisdiction. Further, the second provide to Section 57(2) of the Act of 1958 laid down that the provisions for appeal under the Act of 1952 were to continue-in force in respect of suits and proceedings disposed of thereunder. Consequently, the right of appeal against the order continued to be governed by s. 34 of the Act of 1952, and the appeal was wrongly dismissed by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge on the ground that no appeal lay. The order of that Court as well as the revisional order of the High Court were, therefore, incorrect."

It is relevant to note that Section - 8 of the Telangana General Clauses

Act, 1897 is pari materia to Section - 6 of the General Clauses Act,

1897.

12. In view of the aforesaid analogy, since the order impugned

in the revision filed by the petitioner under Section - 9 of the ROR

Act, 1971 is before repealing ROR Act, 1971. Therefore, according to

this Court, the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order

KL,J W.P.No.441 of 2023

dated 04.08.2018 in appeal No.B/884/2018 passed by respondent No.5

is maintainable.

13. In view of the above discussion and also the nature of relief

sought by the petitioner herein, this writ petition is disposed of