Telangana High Court

Gundlapurapu Eswaramma vs The State Of Telangana on 14 March, 2023

Bench: J Sreenivas Rao

       HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

              WRIT PETITION No.5418 OF 2023


Between:
Gundlapurapu Eswaramma
W/o. Daruga, aged about 70 years,
Occ.Agriculture and another                      .... Petitioners
                            Vs.

The State of Telangana,
Rep by its Principle Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 20 others.
                                                  .. Respondents

DATE OF THE ORDER PRONOUNCED:            14.03.2023




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?
          * HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

             + WRIT PETITION No.5418 OF 2023


                 % DATED 14TH March, 2023

Gundlapurapu Eswaramma
W/o. Daruga, aged about 70 years,
Occ.Agriculture and another                       ... Petitioners

                               Vs.

The State of Telangana,
Rep by its Principle Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 20 others.
                                                  ... Respondents


<Gist:

>Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri . Kondaparthi Srinivas, Adv

^Counsel for Respondents     : Government Pleader for Social
                               Welfare
                               Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, Adv

? CASES REFERRED:

1. AIR 1963 SC 786.
       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

            WRIT PETITION No.5418 of 2023
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"..to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejected the stay application filed along with Revision Petition vide Memo No. 95/TWITR/2023-1 dated 22.02.2023 filed by the petitioners against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in CMA No.36/2021 dated 09.12.2022 and the Order of the 3rd respondent passed in LTR Case No. A/02/2021/DGM dated 06.08.2021, in respect of the land in Sy No.63 to an extent of Ac.8.04 gts and Sy.No.62/1 to an extent of Ac.0.04 gts and Sy.No. 67/1 to an extent of Ac.5.30 gts situated at Singavaram Village of Dummugudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District without giving any opportunity to the petitioners straight away rejected the stay petition filed along with Revision petition before the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India by setting aside the Order dated 22.02.2023 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioners in the interest of justice..."

Heard, Sri Kondaparthi Srinivasa, learned counsel for

the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Tribal

Welfare and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri C.

Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.5 to 21.

2. With the consent of the respective parties, this writ

petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

the petitioners are the owners of the subject property covered

under Survey Nos.63, 64, 67/1, 67/2 situated at Singavaram

Village of Dummugudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem

District and the same was acquired through Registered Will

Deed vide document No.30/1994 dated 09.04.1994 executed

by Devulapalli Jagannadha Rao. After his death the

petitioners became the owners of the property.

3.1. He further submits that respondent No.3 initiated

LTR proceedings vide Case No.A/02/2021/DGM, dated

06.08.2021, basing on the complaint filed by the unofficial

respondents on the alleged ground that the petitioners have

occupied Government land and requested to evict the

petitioners from the said land. Respondent No.3 without

considering the explanation of the petitioners passed the

ejectment orders on 06.08.2021. He further submits that

against the said order the petitioners filed appeal CMA No.36 of 2021 before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2

also without considering the contentions raised by the

petitioners simply dismissed the appeal and confirmed the

order of respondent No.3 by its order dated 09.12.2022.

3.2. He further submits that aggrieved by the said

orders the petitioners filed Revision under Section 6 of The

Telangana State Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation

1/1959 as amended Regulation 1 of 1970, (herein after called

for Brevity 'Regulations') along with the Stay petition

seeking stay of operation of the orders passed by respondent

Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.1 without issuing any notice

and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners,

rejected the stay petition while admitting the Revision, by its

order dated 22.02.2023 vide Memo No.95/TW.LTR/2023-1.

The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is a clear

violation of the principles of natural justice and also contrary

to law.

4. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader

for Tribal Welfare contended that respondent No.1 has rightly rejected the stay petition after going through the

records and at the time of rejection of the stay petition, the

petitioners are not entitled to any notice and opportunity.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial

respondents vehemently contended that the subject land

belongs to Government and the petitioners are not entitled to

claim any semblance of rights, interest or title over the

property basing on the alleged will deed dated 09.04.1994

and the same is hit by provisions of Section 2(g) of

regulations. He further submits that the petitioners filed Suit

O.S.No.84 of 2019 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Bhadrachalam against the unofficial respondents herein

seeking perpetual injunction and also filed application for

grant of temporary injunction. The said suit is pending and

no injunction orders are granted in favour of the petitioners.

He further submits that the petitioners were never in

possession of the subject property and the unofficial

respondents are in possession of the property and respondent

No.1 has rightly rejected the stay application after going

through the records. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment in Katta Yesuratnam vs Commissioner,

Land Revenue, and equivalent citation viz., 1993 (1) ALT

200 and Vemana Somalamma and Ors Vs. Deputy Collector

Tribal and equivalent citations 1993 (1) ALT 409 contending

that the petitioners are claiming the rights over the property

basing on the wills executed by non-tribals which is ex-facie

illegal and as it is contrary to section 2(g) of Regulations the

petitioners are not entitled to relief sought in the present writ

petition.

6. Points for consideration in this writ petition are:

1. Whether the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the stay application of the petitioners, pending Revision, without giving notice and opportunity, is sustainable under law?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief?

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by

respective parties and a perusal of the material available on

record reveals that respondent No.3 by exercising his

powers conferred under the Regulations, basing on the complaint lodged by unofficial respondents, initiated the

proceedings vide LTR Case No.A/02/2021/DGM in respect

of lands in Survey No.64 to an extent of Acs.8.28 guntas,

Survey No.62/1 to an extent of Acs.1.14 guntas, Survey

No.62/2 to an extent of Acs.0.15 guntas, Survey No.63 to an

extent of Acs.8.04 guntas, Survey No.67/2 to an extent of

Acs.6.30 guntas, Survey No.67/1 to an extent of Acs.5.30

guntas situated at Singavaram Village of Dummugudem

Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District against the

petitioners and respondent No.3 had passed the ejectment

order on 06.08.2021. It further appears that against the said

order, the petitioners filed appeal CMA No.36 of 2021 before

respondent No.2 and the Appellate Authority dismissed the

appeal confirming the orders passed by respondent No.3 on

09.12.2022, questioning the said order, the petitioners filed

Revision petition invoking the provisions of Section 6 of

Regulations on 04.01.2023 along with Interlocutory

Application seeking stay of operation of the orders passed by

respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.1 passed impugned order vide Memo No.95/TW.LTR/2023-1 dated 22.02.2023,

relevant portion of the order is extracted below:

"Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby admitted the Revision Petition filed by Smt. Gundlapurapu Eswaramma, W/o. Daruga and Sri Gndlapurapu Daruga, S/o Somulu, R/o. Bhadrachalam Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The request for Stay is rejected as there are no sufficient grounds".

8. Questioning the said rejection order, the petitioners

filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.1 is

adjudicating the proceedings by exercising the quasi judicial

powers conferred under Regulations. Respondent No.1

while admitting Revision petition rejected the stay

application filed by the petitioner only on the ground that

there are no sufficient grounds and it appears that before

passing the rejection order, respondent No.1 has neither

issued notice nor given an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners and rejected the stay application. Respondent

No.1 passed impugned rejection order without giving any

reasons much less valid reasons and it amounts to clear

violation of principles of natural justice.

9. No order adverse to a party should be passed without

hearing them. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Udit Narain

Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue1,

relied upon the judgment in King v. London County

Council [(1931) 2 KB 215, 243] stating as follows:

"Wherever any body of persons (1) having legal authority (2) to determine questions affecting rights of subjects and (3) having the duty to act judicially (4) act in excess of their legal authority

-- a writ of certiorari may issue". It will be seen from the ingredients of judicial act that there must be a duty to act judicially. A tribunal, therefore, exercising a judicial or quasi- judicial act cannot decide against the rights of a party without giving him a hearing or an opportunity to represent his case in the manner known to law. If the provisions of a particular statute or rules made thereunder do not provide for it, principles of natural justice demand it. Any such order made without hearing the affected parties would be void. As a writ of certiorari will be granted to remove the record of proceedings of an inferior tribunal or authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial acts, ex hypothhesi it follows that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction shall also act judicially in disposing of the proceedings before it.

10. Therefore, the contention raised by learned

Government Pleader for Tribal welfare that at the time of

rejection of stay petition, the petitioners are not entitled to

any notice or opportunity is not tenable under law.

AIR 1963 SC 786

11. Though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents raised several contentions by entering into

the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that

respondent No.1 has already admitted the statutory Revision

filed by the petitioners and the same is pending, if this Court

passes any order by entering into the merits of the case the

Revision petition filed by the petitioners will become