Telangana High Court
Pushpa Bai Died vs The State Of Telangana on 28 February, 2023
Bench: J Sreenivas Rao
W.P. No.49 of 2019
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
WRIT PETITION No.49 OF 2019
Between:
Pushpa Bai (died) her L.Rs 3 to 5 .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep. by Secretary to
Govt. Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad & 3 others. .. Respondents
DATE OF THE ORDER PRONOUNCED: 28.02.2023
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether his Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the judgment?
2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No.49 OF 2019
% DATED 28TH FEBRUARY, 2023
# Pushpa Bai (died) her L.Rs 3 to 5 .. Petitioners
Vs.
$ The State of Telangana rep. by Secretary to
Govt. Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad & 3 others.
.. Respondents
<Gist:
>Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri S. Chandrasekhar
^Counsel for Respondents : Govt. Pleader for Social Welfare
? CASES REFERRED :
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.49 OF 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for seeking writ of Certiorari,
calling for the records relating to Revision Case vide
No.1082/LTR-2/2017 and set aside the order passed in the said
Revision case by the respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.31 Tribal
Welfare (LTR) Department, dated 29.09.2018 and further
declare the dismissal of the said Revision case as illegal,
arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India and against the mandatory provisions of
APSALTR 1959 and further direct the respondents to restore the
suit land i.e.0-35 cents in Sy.N.440/C; 0-88 cents in
Sy.No.442/B; 0-48 cents in Sy.No.440/B, 0-75 cents in
Sy.No.467/1 and 0-83 cents in Sy.No.467/1 of Loanvelly
Village, Sirpur Mandal, Komurambheem-Asifabad District to the
petitioners.
2. Heard Sri S. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social
Welfare appearing on behalf of respondents.
Brief facts of the case:
3. Petitioners submit that the subject land to an extent of
Ac.0-48 cents in Sy.No.440/B, Ac.0-88 cents in Sy.No.442/B,
Ac.0-35 guntas in Sy.No.440/C and Ac.1.68 guntas in
Sy.No.467/1 situated at Loanvelly Village, acquired through
their ancestors and in the year 1969 they partitioned the above
said property among the family members and since then the
petitioners have been in possession of the respective shares
allotted to them.
3.1 The petitioners further submit that in the year 1987
respondent No.3 had initiated suo moto proceedings viz., (1)
Case No.TWA1/1285/87 against Ramesh and Raghavloo, in
respect of land an extent of Ac.0.48 and Ac.0.88 cents in
Sy.Nos.440/B, 442/B, (2) TWA1/1286/87 against Baktaiah
and D. Pushpa Bai in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.35
cents in Sy.No.440/C and (3) TWA1/1292/1987 against
Ashafaz Hussain, D.Raghavloo and D. Sriramulu in respect of
land to an extent of Ac.1.68 cents in Sy.No.467/1 by exercising
the powers conferred under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh
Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation
No. 1 of 1959) hereinafter called as 'Regulation' for brevity, on
the ground that late Sri D. Raghavloo had purchased the land
to an extent of 0-48 cents in Sy.No.440/B and 0-88 cents in
Sy.No.442/B of Loanvelly Village from one Sri Ramesh, 0.35
guntas in Sy.No.440/C of Loanvelly village from Batkaiah and
1.68 cents in Sy.No.467/1 of Laonvelly Village from Ashwak
Hussain in contravention of Regulation.
3.2 The petitioners further submit that during the course of
enquiry before respondent No.3 late D. Raghavulu was bed-
ridden and due to his ill-health he could not prosecute the
proceedings. Respondent No.3 without giving reasonable
opportunity to the parties passed ejectment orders dated
14.8.1987. Against the said orders, they filed Appeals vide
No.D4/Ag/66/87, D4/Ag/67/87 and D4/Ag/68/87 before the
respondent No.2. The Appellate Authority also without properly
considering the contentions, evidence on record, dismissed the
appeals by its order dated 08.06.1990 confirming the ejectment
orders of the respondent No.3. Questioning the said orders they
filed individual writ petitions viz., (1) W.P. No.10488 of 1990, (2)
W.P. No.10450 of 1990 and (3) W.P. No.10452 of 1990 before
this Court and the said writ petitions were also dismissed on
27.02.2004. They further submit that the petitioners in the
said writ petitions are not aware of dismissal of the writ
petitions till they received notice vide Procgs.No.B/631/2004
dated 27.12.2006 from respondent No.4, wherein he directed
the petitioners to hand over the possession of the subject land
pursuant to the ejectment orders passed by respondent No.3
dated 14.08.1987.
3.3 The petitioners further submit that after receiving the
said notice dated 27.12.2006, Smt.Pushpa Bai and others have
filed Revision Petition before respondent No.1 questioning the
orders dated 08.06.1990 passed by the Appellate Authority/
respondent No.2 vide Appeal Nos.D4/Ag/66/87, D4/Ag/67/
87 and D4/Ag/68/87 and orders dated 27.12.2006 in Procgs.
No.B/631/2004 of respondent No.4. The respondent No.1 while
admitting the Revision Petition No.1082/LTR-2/2007-2 rejected
the stay petition on 06.03.2007. Questioning the said rejection
order Pushpa Bai and another filed WP No.7703 of 2007 before
this Court and the same was dismissed on 16.04.2007.
However, this Court directed the respondent No.1 to consider
and dispose of the representation in accordance with law. The
petitioners further submit that respondent No.1 without
considering the grounds raised in the Revision Petition
dismissed the same and passed the impugned order vide
G.O.Ms.No.31, Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department dated
29.09.2018.
4. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the allegations
made by the petitioners inter alia contending that the subject
lands are situated in the scheduled area and the petitioners
have contravened the provisions of Regulations and the
respondent No.3 has rightly initiated the proceedings
No.TWA1/1285/87, (2) TWA1/1286/87 and (3) TWA1/1292
/1987 by exercising the powers conferred under the Regulations
and after following the due procedure prescribed under law
passed the ejectment orders on 14.08.1987. In spite of service
of notice the parties therein have not chosen to contest the
proceedings. Questioning the said orders filed the Appeals
before the respondent No.2/Appellate Authority and the same
were dismissed on 08.06.1990. Against the said orders, three
writ petitions Nos.10448 of 1990, 10450/1990 and 10452/1990
filed before this Court and the same were dismissed by giving
cogent reasons by its order dated 27.02.2004 and the said
orders have become final. Respondent No.4 has taken
possession of the subject lands into Government custody on
05.01.2007 by issuing notice on 27.12.2006. Subsequently,
Pushpa Bai and others have filed Revision Petition before the
respondent No.1 questioning the orders passed by the
respondent No.2 dated 08.06.1990 and Proceedings
No.B/631/2004 of respondent No.4. The respondent No.1
rejected the stay petition on 06.03.2007. Questioning the said
order, Pushpabai and another have filed WP No.7703 of 2007
before this Court and sought consequential relief of restoration
of the lands. The said writ petition was dismissed on
16.04.2007.
4.1 Respondent No.2 further states that pursuant to the
ejectment order passed by the respondent No.3, respondent
No.4 has already taken possession of the subject lands into
Government custody on 05.01.2007. The respondent No.1 after
considering the grounds raised by the petitioners therein and
after following the due procedure of law, dismissed the Revision
Petition and passed the impugned order vide G.O.Ms.No.31,
Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department dated 29.09.2018 and the
petitioners are not entitled any relief much less the relief sought
in the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri S.
Chandrasekhar vehemently contended that respondent No.3
initiated the suo moto proceedings by exercising the powers
conferred under the Regulation and without giving reasonable
opportunity to the predecessors of the petitioners passed the
ejectment orders on 14.08.1987, though the provisions of the
Regulations are not applicable as the transaction took place
prior to the Regulations came into effect. The Appellate
Authority also without adjudicating the appeal on merits,
without giving any reasons, simply confirmed the order of the
Primary Authority and dismissed the appeals on 08.06.1990.
Similarly, respondent No.1 also dismissed the Revision Petition
and passed the impugned order vide G.O.Ms.No.31 dated
29.09.2018 and the same is contrary to the law and liable to be
set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
contended that respondent No.3 had initiated the proceedings
by exercising the suo moto powers conferred under the
Regulations and after following the due procedure contemplated
under law and giving reasonable opportunity to the parties,
passed ejectment orders on 14.08.1997 and the same was
confirmed by Appellant Authority/2nd respondent and
Revisional Authority/1st respondent. The learned Government
Pleader further contended that the predecessors of the
petitioners have filed three independent writ petition Nos.10488
of 1990, 10450 of 1990 and 10452 of 1990 questioning the
orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 08.06.1990 and this
Court dismissed the writ petitions on 27.02.2004 by giving
cogent reasons and the said orders have become final and
binding upon all the parties including the petitioners in the
present writ petition. She further submits that respondent No.4
has taken possession of the subject lands into Government
custody on 05.01.2007 by following due procedure. After
dismissal of the writ petitions, the petitioners filed Revision
Petition before the respondent No.1 questioning the orders
passed by respondent No.2 dated 08.06.1990 and notice issued
by respondent No.4 dated 27.12.2006 and the Revision Petition
filed by the predecessors of the petitioners is not maintainable
under law. The predecessors of the petitioners filed another Writ
Petition No.7703 of 2007 questioning the order dated
06.03.2007 passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting the stay
petition and the said writ petition was also dismissed on
16.04.2007. The respondent No.1 dismissed the Revision
Petition after considering the grounds and material evidence on
record and passed the impugned order vide G.O.Ms.No.31,
Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department dated 29.09.2018 and there is
no illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by
respective parties and material on record, it clearly reveals that
respondent No.3 had initiated suo moto proceedings vide Case
No.TWA1/1285/87 against Ramesh and Raghvloo, in respect of
land an extent of 0.48 and 0.88 cents in Sy.Nos.440/B, 442/B,
(2) TWA1/1286/87 against Baktaiah and D. Pushpa Bai in
respect of land to an extent of 0.35 cents in Sy.No.440/C and
(3) TWA1/1292/1987 against Ashafaz Hussain, D.Raghvloo and
D. Sriramulu in respect of land to an extent of 1.68 cents in
Sy.No.467/1 by exercising the powers conferred under the
Regulation and after following the due procedure as
contemplated under law passed the ejectment orders on
14.08.2008 on the ground that the subject lands are situated in
the scheduled area and the parties have contravened the
provisions of the Regulation. The predecessors of the petitioners
have filed three appeals before respondent No.2 and the same
were dismissed by its order dated 08.06.1990. Questioning the
said orders, the predecessors of the petitioners have filed three
writ petitions viz., (1) W.P.No.10488 of 1990, (2) WP No.10450 of
1990 and (3) W.P. No.10452 of 1990 before this Court and the
same were dismissed on 27.02.2004 and the orders passed by
this Court has become final and binding upon all the parties
concerned including the petitioners also.
8. It further reveals from the record, that after dismissal of
the writ petitions, respondent No.4 issued notice dated
27.12.2006 and had taken possession of the subject lands into
Government custody on 05.01.2007. Thereafter, the
predecessors of the petitioners viz., Pushpa Bai and others have
filed Revision Petition No.1086/LTR-2/2007-2 before
respondent No.1 questioning the orders of the respondent No.2
dated 08.06.1990 and proceedings of the respondent No.4
No.B/631/2004 dated 27.12.2006. The respondent No.1
rejected the stay petition by its order dated 06.03.2007.
Questioning the same, they filed W.P. No.7703 of 2007 before
this Court and the same was dismissed on 16.04.2007.
However, directed the respondent No.1 to consider and dispose
of the representation, if any and if it is maintainable, in
accordance with law.
9. It is significant to mention here that the Revision Petition
filed by Smt.Pushpa Bai and others who are the predecessors of
the petitioners, questioning the orders dated 08.06.1990 passed
by respondent No.2 in three independent appeals vide Appeal
Nos.D4/Ag/66/87, D4/Ag/67/87 and D4/Ag/68/87 and
consequential notice issued by respondent No.4 in proceedings
No.B/631/2004 dated 27.12.2006 is not maintainable under
law on two grounds; i.e. firstly (i) that the predecessors of the
petitioners have filed three independent writ petitions viz., (1)
W.P.No.10488 of 1990, (2) WP No.10450 of 1990 and (3) W.P.
No.10452 of 1990 before this Court questioning the very same
orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 08.06.1990 and the
said writ petitions were dismissed on merits by its order dated
27.02.2004 and the order passed by respondent No.2 was
merged in the said writ petitions and the orders of this Court
have become final and binding upon all the parties concerned
including the petitioners in the writ petition on hand. Secondly,
(ii) against the orders passed by respondent No.2 in three
independent appeals the predecessors of the petitioners viz.,
Smt.Pushpa Bai and others have filed only one Revision Petition
vide 1082/LTR-2/2007-2 on 01.02.2007 and the same is also
not maintainable under law.
10. The Revisional Authority/respondent No.1 after
considering the grounds raised by the petitioners therein and
material evidence on record rightly dismissed the Revision
Petition and passed the impugned order vide G.O.Ms.No.31
Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department, dated 29.09.2018, and there is
no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned
order, to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of Constitution of India, as the scope of Judicial Review is
very limited and there is no merit in the writ petition and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
28th February, 2023
Skj
Note
L.R. Copy to be marked : 'Yes'.
B/o.
Skj.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.49 OF 2019
Date : 28-02-2023
Note
L.R. Copy to be marked : 'Yes'.
B/o.
Skj.
