Sama Sandeep Reddy vs G. Venkata Swamy
2023 Latest Caselaw 3725 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3725 Tel
Judgement Date : 8 November, 2023

Telangana High Court

Sama Sandeep Reddy vs G. Venkata Swamy on 8 November, 2023

Bench: Alok Aradhe, N.V.Shravan Kumar

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                      AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


                   WRIT APPEAL No.729 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


       Ms.      N.Praveena,          learned       counsel       representing

Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants.

       Mr.      P.Venu        Gopal,       learned          Senior   Counsel,

representing Mr. Dasari Krishna Reddy, learned counsel

for respondents No.2 to 9.


2.     This intra court appeal has been filed by the

appellants, who are respondents No.6 and 7 in the writ

petition, namely W.P.No.3581 of 2016, against the order

dated 20.12.2022 by which the said writ petition preferred

by respondents No.1 to 9 herein has been allowed with a

direction the Joint Collector - II, the Special Grade Deputy

Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar to

consider the application dated 05.11.1993 submitted by
                               2




writ petitioner No.1 seeking to enter his name in the

revenue records.


3.   The parties shall be referred to as per their rankings

before the learned Single Judge.


4.   Facts

giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated

are that petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated

05.11.1993 to the Tahsildar for conducting local inspection

and for a further direction to enter his name in the

possession column of pahanies for the year 1992-1993 in

respect of the land bearing Survey Nos.46 and 31 of

Upperapally Village. The Tahsildar, by an order dated

17.08.2013, rejected the claim of the petitioner No.1. The

petitioner No.1 thereupon filed an appeal under Section

5-B of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass

Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "1971 Act"),

before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The appeal preferred

by the petitioner No.1 was disposed of by an order dated

21.01.2015 by issuing various directions to the Tahsildar.

The private respondents filed two revision cases before the

Joint Collector, who by an order dated 05.12.2015

disposed of both the revisions and set aside the order

passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The said order

was challenge by the petitioners in the writ petition. The

learned Single Judge, by an order dated 20.12.2022, set

aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar, the Revenue

Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector, dated

17.08.2013, 21.01.2015 and 05.12.2015 respectively. The

learned Single Judge further held that in view of the repeal

of the 1971 Act, by the Telangana Rights in Land and

Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020, the Tahsildar cannot

consider the application dated 05.11.1993. Therefore, the

learned Single Judge opined that he is not inclined to remit

the matter to the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer

and the Joint Collector. However, the following observation

was made in the concluding paragraph of the order passed

by the learned Single Judge:

6. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to remand the matter back to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and deems it appropriate to leave it open to the parties to agitate their claims in accordance with law by initiating appropriate proceedings. In case, if any such proceedings are initiated by any of the parties, it is open for the authorities concerned to pass

appropriate orders, in accordance with law, without reference to any of the findings or observations recorded in the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, within a period of three (3) months from the date of initiation of such proceedings.

5. Being aggrieved, this writ appeal has been filed on

the ground that the learned Single Judge ought to have

relegated the petitioners to avail of the remedy of civil suit.

6. From a perusal of paragraph 6 of the order passed by

the learned Single Judge, it is evident that the liberty has

been reserved to the parties to agitate their claims in

accordance with law by initiating appropriate proceedings.

It has further been directed that in case such proceedings

are initiated by any of the parties, the authorities

concerned shall decide the same within a period of three

months.

7. It is pertinent to note that in pursuance of the