Smt Ravula Laxmi Reddy And 2 Others vs Smt. Raghunayakula Rama And 5 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1067 Tel

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


                   WRIT APPEAL No.235 of 2023

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


       Heard Mr. Bethi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for

the appellants and Mr. Ravi Kumar Vadlakonda, learned

counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner. We have also

heard Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader

for Revenue for respondents No.2 to 6.

2. This intra-court appeal has been filed by the

appellants assailing the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by

the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.34483 of

2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.

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

seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to mutate her

name in the revenue records pertaining to agricultural land

admeasuring Ac.0.0001 guntas in Survey No.287/B/3 and

Ac.1.1999 guntas situated in Survey No.287/2/3 total

extent of Ac.1.20 guntas situated at Rayakal Village,

V.Saidapur Mandal, Karimnagar District (subject land). It

was contended before the learned Single Judge by

respondent No.1 that her vendor's name was entered in the

revenue records and therefore she was entitled to get her

name mutated in the revenue records in respect of the

subject land. Third parties had filed review petition under

Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar

Passbooks Act, 1971, which was allowed in favour of

respondent No.1 on 19.12.2019. Thereafter, respondent

No.1 had submitted online application for entering her

name in the revenue record in respect of the subject land

and for issuance of the pattadar pass book. But, no

decision was taken thereon.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

had submitted that if the online application was filed by

respondent No.1, the same would be considered by the

revenue authorities in accordance with law. In view of

such submissions, learned Single Judge disposed of the

writ petition by directing the District Collector, Warangal,

to consider the online application of respondent No.1 by

putting respondents No.6 to 8 in the writ petition on

notice.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

appellants were arrayed as respondents No.6 to 8 in the

writ proceedings. Without issuing notice to them and

without giving them an opportunity of hearing, learned

Single Judge disposed of the writ petition. He submits that

in respect of the subject land, predecessor of the appellants

- Ravula Tirupathi Reddy, had filed W.P.No.2282 of 2020

assailing the order of the Joint Collector dated 19.12.2019

and seeking other related reliefs. In that writ petition,

respondent No.1 has been arrayed as respondent No.8. By

order dated 05.02.2020, this Court had granted interim

stay. Had the appellants been given an opportunity of

hearing, they could have placed these facts before the

learned Single Judge.

6. We have already observed in a number of appeals

that subsequent issuance of notice and hearing by the

statutory authority cannot be a substitute for notice and

hearing by the writ court. We feel that appellants are

necessary parties to the proceedings in W.P.No.34483 of

2022 and they ought to have been heard before disposal of

the said writ petition.

7. That being the position, we set aside the order dated

05.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.34483 of 2022 and remand

the matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge

having roster to decide the writ petition afresh after giving

due opportunity of hearing to all the contesting parties.

8. Writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

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

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 03.03.2023 vs