Godisela Madhusudhan Reddy vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 2472 Tel

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                        AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
                               W.A.No.897 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

        Heard Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants; Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government

Pleader for Revenue representing the official respondents; and

Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4.


2.      This intra court appeal is filed against an order

dated 09.06.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge by which a

writ petition preferred by the appellants viz., W.P.No.7317

of 2013 has been dismissed.


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, according to respondent No.4, his father viz., Chitta

Laxman Rama Murthy was owner of lands admeasuring ::2::

Acs.6.08 guntas and Acs.4.37 guntas bearing Survey Nos.129

and 132 respectively situated in Sirsa Village, Kottapalli

Mandal, Adilabad District. Respondent No.4 filed a

representation dated 10.11.2011 to the Revenue Divisional

Officer that the name of the petitioners had been entered in

the revenue records as pattadars of the lands in question.

Accordingly, the patta certificates issued in favour of the

petitioners were sought to be cancelled. Thereupon, the

Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dated 12.12.2013,

cancelled the patta certificates issued in favour of the

petitioners and remitted the matter to Tahsildar for enquiry.

5. The petitioners, thereupon, filed a writ petition viz.,

W.P.No.7317 of 2013, in which an interim order was passed

on 19.03.2023. However, the Tahsildar passed consequential

order on 25.02.2013 cancelling the patta certificates issued in

favour of the petitioners.

::3::

6. Petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in

W.P.No.14001 of 2013 on the ground that the order

dated 25.02.2013, passed by the Tahsildar, has been antedated.

The petitioners claim that their grandfather had purchased the

subject property in the year 1959. Thereupon, an application

was filed before the Tahsildar in the year 2005 seeking

regularization of the sale deed executed on 09.11.1959. In

order to consider the application filed by the petitioners, the

procedure prescribed under Section 5-A of the Telangana

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (briefly

'the 1971 Act' hereinafter) was required to be followed, which

was, admittedly, not followed. Order dated 25.02.2013, passed

by the Tahsildar is in violation of Section 5-A of the 1971 Act

as no notice was put to the transferors. The Revenue

Divisional Officer, therefore, remitted the matter to the

Tahsildar. The order passed by the Revenue Divisional

Officer was challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition,

which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

::4::

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

appeal was not filed by respondent No.4 in the prescribed

form and the same was also not within limitation; that the

learned Single Judge has not taken into account the decision in

Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy v. Joint Collector,

Cuddapah and others 1; and that the learned Single Judge

ought to have appreciated that the dispute with regard to title

can be adjudicated only in a civil suit.

8. We have considered the submissions made on both

sides and have perused the record.

9. Admittedly, the proceeding leading to the order of the

Tahsildar dated 25.02.2013 has been carried out in violation of

Section 5-A of the 1971 Act. Therefore, the Revenue

Divisional Officer remitted the matter to the Tahsildar to take

a decision afresh. In other words, an order of remand has

been upheld by the learned Single Judge. Needless to state

2009(1) ALD 248 ::5::

that the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all such

contentions, which have been raised before us, in the

proceeding before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar shall hear the

parties and shall take a fresh decision within a period of three

months from today.

10. To the aforesaid extent, order dated 09.06.2023 passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.78317 of 2023 is

modified.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

stand closed.

__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 19.09.2023 LUR