Telangana High Court
Paramananda Das Died Per His Lr ... vs The Additional Collector on 6 October, 2023
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27887 OF 2023
ORDER : (ORAL)
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to direct
respondent No.1 - the Additional Collector (Formerly Joint
Collector) to reopen the appeal in case No.F1/3458/2003 filed
under Section 24 of the Telangana Inams Abolition Act, 1955, (for
short 'the Act, 1955') and dispose of the same on merits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
appeal in case No.F1/3458/2003 filed by the petitioner under
Section 24 of the Act, 1955 was dismissed for default and the order
is contrary to the judgment dated 11.06.1970 of this Court in
Jammula Atchayya Vs. RDO 1. Learned counsel submitted that
another connected appeal relating to the same subject land is
pending before respondent No.1 against the order of Revenue
Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division in Case
No.L/5136/2012; The issue involved in both the appeals is one and
the same and the pending appeal in Case No.F1/1764/2018 can be
AIR 1971 AP 307
taken up along with the appeal of the petitioner (F1/3458/2003) if
restored. It is stated that the subject land of Acs.4-20 guntas in
Sy.No.368/1 of Attapur Village, Rajendranagar mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, is classified as "Mafi Inam". W.P. No.9375 of
1994 was filed by the petitioner, Mr. Paramananda Das for
correction of revenue records. The same was allowed by order
dated 24.03.1995 directing Mandal Revenue Officer to correct the
records as prayed for. Pursuant thereto order dated 14.09.1995 in
ROR/B/146/Attapur/94 was passed and wrong and erroneous
entries showing the land as "Sarkari Poramboke" was corrected as
"Inam land" i.e., "Mafi Inam" and the name of the inamdar i.e.,
Khatedar Mr. Paramananda Das S/o Ramchal Das was
incorporated in the revenue records including in the Pahani for the
year 1973-74 which covers crucial date i.e., 01.11.1973 for
determining the occupancy rights under the Act, 1955.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
application was submitted by the petitioner before respondent No.2
- Inam Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights certificate (ORC) in
respect of the subject lands which was dismissed by order dated
03.02.2018 in Case No.L/5136/2012 holding that the land is
Government land by relying on the incorrect entries in revenue
records which already have been corrected pursuant to the order
dated 24.03.1995 in W.P. No.9735 of 1994. That against the said
order dated 03.02.2018 an appeal in Case No.F1/1764/2018 is still
pending before respondent No.1 wherein the petitioner is one of
the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of
the petitioner, Mr. Paramananda Das expired on 21.02.2012.
However, the petitioner was not aware of the appeal filed by his
father till recently and he was advised to file restoration
application. The same was filed along with L.R. petition on
30.06.2023 before respondent No.1, but the said application was
not considered. It is reiterated by the learned counsel that appellate
authority does not have any power to dismiss the case for default.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for
respondents and perused the material on record.
6. In Jammula Atchayya Vs. RDO cited supra, it was heldas
under:
"When no specific provision empowering the special tribunal to
dismiss an application or appeal, as the case may be for default has been made
under the special enactment or the rules made thereunder, it must be construed
that such tribunal has no jurisdiction to dismiss an application or appeal for
default. Admittedly, tree (sic there) is no specific provision entitling the
Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the appeal for default. Hence he has a
statutory duty and obligation to dispose of the appeal on merits
notwithstanding the absence of the parties or their counsel. For all these
reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the Revenue Divisional Officer has
no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default notwithstanding the absence
of the parties or their counsel. On the same analogy, the Tahsildar also is not
committee (sic. competent) to dismiss an application before him for default of
appearance of the parties or their counsel."
In view of the above facts and circumstances and law laid down by
this Court, the writ petition is allowed directing respondent No.1 to
re-open the appeal in Case No.F1/3458/2003 filed under Section
24 of the Act, 1955, and dispose of the same on merits along with
appeal in Case No.F1/1764/2018. There shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications,
if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.
_______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
Date: 06.10.2023
MS
