Bathula Achamma , Khammam Dist 3 ... vs Addl Agent To Govt Project ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1434 Tel

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

             WRIT PETITION No.22679 of 2013


ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus

declaring the action of suo motu initiation of the appeal

proceedings by the respondent No.1 in CMA No.133/2005

against the common order of the 2nd respondent dated

29.06.2004 in LTR Case Nos.194/2004/MGR, 196/2004/MGR

and the consequent order dated 31.10.2009 by the 1st respondent

in respect of the subject lands in Sy. No.147/E, 147/EE, 169,

170 admeasuring to an extent of Acs.5-24 gts, 1-12 gts, 0-27 gts

and Acs.2-14 gts respectively situated at Manuguru village and

Mandal, Khammam District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of

the principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the

said proceedings of the 1st respondent and further direct the

respondents not to interfere or take steps to evict the petitioners

from possession of the subject lands in any manner.

2. Heard Sri K. Jagadishwar, learned counsel representing Sri

Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare appearing

on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are the owners of the land to an extent of Acs.5-24

guntas, 1-12 guntas, 0-27 guntas and Acs.2-14 guntas in Survey

No.147/E, 147/EE, 169 and 170 respectively situated at

Manuguru village and Mandal, Khammam District( herein after

referred to as 'subject land' for brevity). Respondent No.2 initiated

proceedings vide LTR Case Nos.194/2004/MGR and

196/2004/MGR exercising powers conferred under Telangana

Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations 1 of 1959 read with

amendment Regulation 1 of 1970(herein after referred to as

'Regulations') in respect of subject land and dropped the

proceedings by its order dated 29.06.2004. He further submits

that the respondent No.1 exercising suo motu powers initiated the

proceedings by way of appeal CMA No.133 of 2005 and passed the

ejectment order on 31.10.2009.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended

that respondent No.1 is not having jurisdiction to entertain the

appeal by invoking suo motu powers. As per the provisions of

Section 3(2)(a) of the Regulations such power is available only to

the primary authority but not to the Appellate authority. In

support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of this

Court in W.P.No.6640 of 2007 dated 31.01.2012.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Tribal Welfare submits that the provisions of Section 3(2)(a) of the

Regulations is applicable to the Appellate authority also and

respondent No.1 has rightly passed the impugned order. The

petitioner without availing the alternative remedy as available

under the Section 6 of Regulations filed the present writ petition

and the same is not maintainable under law.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by

respective parties and after perusal of the records, it clearly shows

that it is an undisputed fact that respondent No.2 initiated

proceedings in respect of subject land under the provisions of

Regulations and passed order on 29.06.2004 dropping the

proceedings against the subject land. Respondent No.1 initiated

proceedings by invoking suo motu powers by way of appeal CMA

No.133 of 2005 and passed ejectment orders. As per the

provisions of Section 3(2)(a) of Regulations such power is not

available to the appellate authority. In W.P.No.7063 of 2008, this

Court after considering the judgments of the Apex Court,

specifically held that the Appellate authority is not having

jurisdiction to entertain the appeal by invoking suo motu powers

under Section 3(2)(a) of the Regulations. In view of the same, the

impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is declared as without

jurisdiction.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, the

respondent No.2 is given liberty to take appropriate steps, in

accordance with law. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

28th March, 2023 PSW

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

WRIT PETITION No.22679 of 2013

28th March, 2023

PSW