Telangana High Court
Syed Asghar Hussaini And 5 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 16 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.23869 of 2019 and 8121 of 2021
% Dated 16.07.2024
W.P.No.23869 of 2019
# Syed Asghar Hussaini S/o.late Samadullah Hussaini
Aged about 77 years, occ: Retired Government Employee
R/o.H.No.9-4-131/32, Akbarbagh, Tolichowki,
Hyderabad and five others
....Petitioners
VERSUS
$ State of Telangana
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others.
... Respondents
W.P.No.8121 of 2021
# Syed Asghar Hussaini S/o.late Samadullah Hussaini
Aged about 75 years,
R/o.H.No.9-4-131/32, Akbarbagh,
Tolichowki, Hyderabad and four others
....Petitioners
VERSUS
$ State of Telangana
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr.Zulfaquar Alam (WP.23869 of 2019)
Mr.Mohammed Abdul Wahab
(W.P.No.8121 of 2021)
^ Counsel for Respondents : GP for Revenue
Mr.S.Viplav Simha Reddy
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2017) 16 SCC 680
2. (2015) 6 SCC 716
3. (2018) 1 ALD 290
4. (2011) 7 SCC 69
5. (2008) 12 SCC 481
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.23869 of 2019 and 8121 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.23869 of 2019 is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the
action of the 3rd respondent in passing the impugned order in
Appeal No.C/383/2018 dt.30.8.2018 setting aside the orders
passed by the 4th respondent in Procs.No.B/71/2009
dt.19.12.2016 by directing him to pass orders afresh by affording
opportunity to all the concerned, when admittedly the 4th
respondent has only implemented the orders passed in
G.O.Msl.No.1110 Revenue ® dt.19.8.1975 in compliance of the
orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.10339/2012
dt.19.1.2016, as being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral and
unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same..."
1.1. W.P.No.8121 of 2021 is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue any writ, order or direction more in the nature
of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent
herein/Tahsildar in passing the order dt.29.10.2019 in case
No.B/2929/2019 in respect of land in Survey No.126 to an extent
of Ac.1.27 guntas situated at Chandippa village, Shankerpally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional, and against the provisions of Law and in utter
violation and disobeyance of orders in w.P.No.23869 of 2019 and
consequently declare the same as void ab initio and further direct
the respondents to forthwith restore the name of the original
Inamdar in online Pahanis and the Dharani as per the
Supplementary Sethwar and subsisting binding orders of the
Hon'ble High Court......"
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. The claim of the petitioners is that they are owners and
possessors of land to an extent of Ac.8.30 gts. in Sy.No.124, Ac.1.04
gts. in Sy.No.125 and Ac.1.27 gts. in Sy.No.126 situated at Chandippa
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
Village of Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. During the life
time of their father, there was some error crept in the entries in
Sethwar instead of recording the name of their father, it was recorded
as Gairan land in respect of land in Sy.No.124 and Sy.No.125 was
mentioned in the name of Ramanujamma and Sy.No.126 was
mentioned in the name of Peerzad Akbar Hussaini Wagaira.
Immediately after came to know about the said wrong entries, their
father submitted representation before the revenue authorities
requesting them to rectify the same. Basing upon the said
representation and basing on the proposal submitted by the then
District Collector and the then Commissioner, Survey and Settlement,
recommended the Government for rectification of the said error as per
the provisions of Section 87 of Hyderabad Land Records Act.
Pursuant to the same, the Government issued orders vide
G.O.Ms.No.1110 dated 19.08.1975 and accordingly, the errors were
rectified in Sethwar 1953 and issued supplementary Sethwar by duly
correcting the name of pattadar and owner of the above said lands as
Syed Samadullah Hussaini S/o.Qubululla Hussaini and also directed
respondent No.4 to implement the same. In the meanwhile, their
father died.
2.2. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 have filed W.P.No.10339 of
2012 questioning the action of the respondent authorities therein for
non implementing the order dated 25.11.1985 for mutation of their
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
fathers' name in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar pass
book and title deed in their favour in respect of the subject properties
i.e., land admeasuring Ac.8.30 gts. in Sy.No.124, Ac.1.04 gts., in
Sy.No.125 and Ac.1.23 gts. in Sy.No.126 situated at Chandippa
Village of Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the said
writ petition was allowed on 19.01.2016 directing respondent Nos.2 to
4 therein to take steps in accordance with law for issuance of pattadar
pass book and title deed at the earliest.
2.3. Aggrieved by the above said order, respondent No.5 filed
W.A.No.401 of 2018 claiming that he had purchased the land in
Sy.No.126 admeasuring Ac.1.27 gts. from M/s.Proagro Seed Company
Private Limited, through registered document No.1521 of 2006 dated
07.02.2006. The said W.A.No.401 of 2018 was disposed of on
10.09.2008 granting liberty to respondent No.5 to file revision under
Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971
(for short, 'RoR Act') within four weeks from the date of order for
correction, continuation or maintenance of records of right in respect
of land in Sy.Nos.124, 125 and 126 situated at Chandippa Village of
Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and further directed the
revisional authority-Joint Collector to pass orders after affording
opportunity to both parties within three months from the date of filing
of the revision; and further directed the parties to maintain status quo
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
as regards possession and enjoyment of the property till the revision is
disposed of and order communicated to the parties.
2.4. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3-RDO passed ex parte orders
in the appeal filed by respondent No.5 vide No.C/383/2018, dated
30.08.2018, by setting aside the orders passed by respondent No.4-
Tahasildar dated 19.12.2016 in respect of the land covered by
Sy.No.126 to an extent of Ac.1.27 gts., directing respondent No.4 to
enquire into the matter afresh, while issuing opportunity to all the
concerned and by making wide publicity in the village, and pass
appropriate orders afresh strictly in accordance with the Rules and
Law under RoR Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed
W.P.No.23869 of 2019.
2.5. Pursuant to the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by respondent
No.3 in Case No.C/383/2018, respondent No.4 passed order in Case
No.B/2929/2019 deleting the name of the petitioners' father i.e.,
Samadulla Hussaini from the revenue record of right from 2016-2017
onwards and restoring the name of respondent No.5 as pattadar and
occupant over the land in Sy.No.126 to an extent of Ac.1.27 gts., for
the year 2016-2017 to till date by its order dated 29.10.2019.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.8121 of 2021.
3. In view of the same, both the writ petitions are clubbed together
and disposed of by way of a common order.
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
4. Heard Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing
Sri Zulfaquar Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.23869 of 2019 and Sri Mohammed Abdul Wahab, learned
counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.8121 of 2021 and learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 to 4 and Sri S. Viplav Simha Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.5.
5. Learned senior counsel submits that respondent No.5
suppressing the factum of filing of appeal No.C/383/2018 before
respondent No.3 aggrieved by the orders dated 19.12.2016 passed by
respondent No.4 filed W.A.No.401 of 2018 and basing upon the
submission made by respondent No.5 only, the Hon'ble Division
Bench of composite High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad, disposed of the above said writ appeal on 10.09.2018 and
granted liberty to respondent No.5 to file Revision under Section 9 of
ROR Act within a period of four weeks from the date of the order and
further directed the revisional authority to dispose of the said revision
within a period of three months from the date of filing of the revision
petition and also directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards
possession and enjoyment till the disposal of the revision petition. He
further submits that even before passing of the orders in W.A.No.401
of 2018 dated 10.09.2018, respondent No.3 had passed order in
appeal filed by respondent No.5 on 30.08.2018. Respondent No.5 had
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
suppressed the factum of filing of appeal including disposal of the said
appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.401 of 2018.
5.1. He further contended that this Court on 01.11.2019 while
admitting W.P.No.23869 of 2019 granted interim stay as prayed for.
When the above said case is pending, respondent No.4 had issued
proceedings on 29.10.2019 deleting the name of the petitioners' father
viz., Samadulla Hussaini and restored the name of respondent No.5 in
the revenue record of rights. Questioning the same, the petitioners
filed W.P.No.8121 of 2021. On 06.04.2021, this Court while admitting
the writ petition granted interim suspension suspending the order
dated 29.10.2019 passed by respondent No.4.
5.2. He vehemently contended that respondent No.5 had invited the
order dated 10.09.2018 from the Hon'ble Division Bench in
W.A.No.401 of 2018 by suppressing several material facts. Pursuant
to the said order, respondent No.5 ought to have filed revision under
Section 9 of RoR Act before revisional authority/Joint Collector. He
further contended that the allegations made by respondent No.5 that
due to the communication gap between him and his counsel, he could
not brought to the notice of the Court about filing of appeal and
passing of the order by respondent No.3 dated 30.08.2018 is not
acceptable on the ground that respondent No.5 has not filed any
application for seeking review/modification of the order dated
10.09.2018 passed in W.A.No.401 of 2018 by explaining reasons, as
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
such, the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench is binding upon
all the parties in lis. Hence, the impugned order passed by
respondent No.3 dated 30.08.2018 and consequential order dated
29.10.2019 passed by respondent No.4 are liable to be dismissed.
5.3. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied upon
the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited
v. Pranay Sethi and others 1.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the
petitioners are not having any semblance of right, interest over the
subject property to an extent of Ac.1.27 gts. covered by Sy.No.126. He
submits that one Smt. K.Ramanjumma was the original owner of the
above said land and she was the protect tenant and she got occupancy
right certificate (ORC) under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, vide proceedings
No.A1/1020/75 dated 20.06.1978. Pursuant to the above said ORC,
her name was mutated in the revenue records including in original
Sethwar as pattadar. However, the then Mandal Revenue Officer,
Shankarpally, vide proceedings No.S2/1361/1985 dated 25.11.1985,
had issued supplementary Sethwar in favour of Samadulla Hussainee
in respect of Ac.11.21 gts. including the subject property to an extent
of Ac.1.27 gts. in Sy.No.126, without verifying records. Questioning
the above said order dated 25.11.1985, the successor of late
(2017) 16 SCC 680
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
K.Ramanujamma, namely, K.Rajeshwar Reddy had filed appeal Case
No.C/6205/86 before the RDO in respect of land to an extent of
Ac.1.27 gts. in Sy.No.126 and the said appeal was allowed on
20.03.1991 by setting aside the order dated 25.11.1985. Aggrieved by
the same, petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 have filed Revision Case
No.B/8075/91 invoking the provisions of under Section 9 of the RoR
Act before Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and the same was
dismissed on 11.12.1995 and the said order has become final.
K.Rajeshwar Reddy alienated the subject property in favour of
M/s.Proagro Seed Company Private Limited through Registered Sale
Deed vide document bearing No.835 of 1996 dated 27.05.1996.
Thereafter, respondent No.5 had purchased the subject property from
M/s.Proagro Seeds Company through registered sale deed vide
document bearing No.1521 of 2006 dated 07.02.2006 and his name
was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass book and title
deed were issued in his favour.
6.1. He further contended that petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 have filed
W.P.No.10339 of 2012 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad, seeking a direction to implement the order
dated 25.11.1985 passed by the Tahasildar, Shankarpally, without
impleading respondent No.5 as a party respondent, by suppressing
the material fact that the order dated 25.11.1985 of the Tahasildar
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
was set aside by the RDO on 20.03.1991 and the same was confirmed
by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, by its order dated 11.12.1995.
6.2. He also contended that the ORC granted on 20.06.1978 in
favour of Smt.K.Ramanujamma in respect of subject property has
become final. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any
rights over the property. He further submits that due to the
communication gap between respondent No.5 and his counsel in
W.A.No.401 of 2018, respondent No.5 could not brought to the notice
of the Hon'ble Division Bench about filing of the appeal before RDO,
Chevella, including disposal of the said appeal, and the same does not
amount to suppression of fact. Respondent No.5 has rightly invoked
the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under the RoR Act.
6.3. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the
judgment of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Anil
Kumar Sharma and another 2.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that respondent
Nos.3 and 4 have rightly passed the impugned orders after following
the due procedure and the same are in accordance with law.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals
that the petitioners are claiming rights over the property to an extent
(2015) 6 SCC 716
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
of Ac.8.30 gts. in Sy.No.124, Ac.1.04 gts., in Sy.No.125 and Ac.1.27
gts. in Sy.No.126 situated at Chandippa Village of Shankarpally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through their father, namely late
Samadulla Hussaini.
9. It further reveals that petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 have filed
W.P.No.10339 of 2012 before erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad, questioning the order dated 25.11.1985 passed by the
Thasildar, Shankarpally, in not mutating the name of their father in
revenue records in respect of land admeasuring Ac.8.30 gts in
Sy.No.124, Ac.1.04 gts. in Sy.No.125 and Ac.1.23 gts. in Sy.No.126
situated at Chandippa village of Shankerpally Mandal Ranga Reddy
District, as illegal and sought direction to issue the pattadar pass
book and title deed in their favour and the said writ petition was
allowed and directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein to take steps in
accordance with law for issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed
in respect of lands in question at the earliest, by its order dated
19.01.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 filed
W.A.No.401 of 2018. The Hon'ble Division Bench of combined High
Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,
disposed of the said writ appeal on 10.09.2018 and passed the
following order:
"(i) The appellant is given liberty to file revision under
Section 9 of the Act within four weeks from today by enclosing
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
a copy of this order for correction, continuation or maintenance
of records of right for Sy.Nos.124, 125 and 126 situated in
Chandippa Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District;
(ii) The revisional authority/Joint Collector calls for the record
relating to the subject matter, keeps in view the principle laid
down by this Court in KURUVA HANUMANTHAMMA v.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
HYDERABAD, AND ANOTHER 3 and passes orders after
affording opportunity to both parties within three months from
the date of filing of revision.
(iii) The parties are directed to maintain status quo as regards
possession and enjoyment till the revision is disposed of and
order communicated to parties."
10. It further reveals from the record that even prior to filing of the
writ appeal, respondent No.5 filed appeal before respondent No.3
under the provisions of RoR Act on 19.02.2018 questioning the orders
passed by Tahasildar, Shankarpally, vide Proceedings No.B/71/2009
dated 19.12.2016 incorporating the name of Samadulla Hussaini, who
is none other than the father of the writ petitioners, in respect of the
subject land to an extent of Ac.1.27 gts. in Sy.No.126 and the said
appeal was allowed on 30.08.2018 by setting aside the above said
order dated 19.12.2016 and directed the Tahasdilar, Shankarpally, to
enquire into the matter afresh while issuing notice and opportunity to
all the concerned and by making wide publicity in the village and pass
appropriate orders afresh strictly under the provisions of the Rules
(2018) 1 ALD 290
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
and Act laid under RoR Act. It further reveals that pursuant to the
said order, Tahasildar, Shankarpally Mandal, passed order, vide Case
No.B/2929/2019 dated 29.10.2019, which reads as follows:
In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case
and on remand of the case by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chevella Division in Case No.C/383/2018 dated 30.08.2018,
the earlier mutation orders in file No.B/1845/2007 dated
15.10.2007 holds good and Pattadar Pass Book & title Deed
issued earlier in the name of Ashok Kumar also holds good and
it appears that E-Pass Book has not been issued to the
petitioner herein. But in the Online it appears that name of
Samadulla Hussain has been recorded during the LRUP
Programme. Therefore, these entries are to be rectified by
deleting the name of Samadulla Hussain who is nothing but
Inamdar but not in occupation of the said land and these
orders of the Tahsildar in file No.B/71/2009 dated 19.12.2016
has already been set asided by the Appellate authority &
Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division by an vide order
dated 30.08.2018 in file No.C/383/2018. Therefore, it is
ordered to delete the name of Samadulla Hussain from the
Revenue record right from 2016-2017 onwards and name of
M.Ashok Kumar S/o.Venkata Narsaiah to be restore as
Pattadar & occupant over the land in Sy.No.126 extent
Acs.1.27 gts. situated at Chandippa Village, Shankerpally
Mandal for the years 2016-2017 to till date.
11. The record further reveals that the petitioners have filed
W.P.No.23869 of 2019 before this Court on 30.10.2019 questioning
the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 30.08.2018 in Appeal
No.C/383/2018. By that time, respondent No.4 had already disposed
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
of the proceedings vide Case No.B/2929/2019 and passed orders on
29.10.2019 deleting the name of the petitioners' father from record of
rights and ordered to restore the name of respondent No.5 pursuant to
the order of respondent No.3 dated 30.08.2018. Accordingly, the
name of respondent No.5 restored in RoR records.
12. The specific claim of the petitioners is that respondent No.3
passed the impugned ex parte order on 30.08.2018. In the above said
order, respondent No.3 had observed that notice dated 23.04.2018
was served upon respondent No.1, but they have not appeared before
him. Admittedly, respondent No.1 in the above said appeal is
Tahasildar, Shankarpally Mandal. Respondent No.3 had not stated
whether the notices were served upon the petitioners through their
office in Appeal No.C/383/2019 filed by respondent No.5 or not. The
official respondents have not filed counter denying the averments
made by the petitioners. Similarly, respondent No.5 had also not
specifically denied the averment made by the petitioners nor filed any
documents to prove that notices were served upon the petitioners in
the appeal and in spite of the same, they have not chosen to appear.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.3 has
not given opportunity, much less reasonable opportunity to the
petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 30.08.2018.
13. Respondent No.3 while exercising the quasi judicial appellate
powers under the provisions of RoR Act ought to have given
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
opportunity to the parties including personal hearing. In the case on
hand, respondent No.3 without giving opportunity much less
reasonable opportunity to the petitioners passed the impugned order
dated 30.08.2018 and the same is gross violation of principles of
natural justice.
14. It is relevant to place on record that respondent No.5 had
approached this Court and filed W.A.No.401 of 2018 with unclean
hands by suppressing the factum of filing of appeal before the RDO
under the RoR Act including disposal of the said appeal on 30.08.2018
and invited the order from the Hon'ble Division Bench on 10.09.2018.
Whereas, respondent No.5 in counter-affidavit in W.P.No.8121 of 2021
simply averred that he is not aware of the factum of listing of
W.A.No.401 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Division Bench and, as such,
he could not intimate about disposal of appeal to his counsel and the
same is not acceptable under law, as he suppressed the material facts.
15. It is also relevant to place on record that petitioner Nos.1, 2 and
4 have also suppressed the several material facts about filing of appeal
Case No.C/6205/1986 before respondent No.3 against them
questioning the order dated 25.11.1985 and allowing of the said
appeal on 20.03.1991 and also filing of revision by them before the
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide Case No.D1/8075/91
questioning the order dated 20.03.1991 and dismissal of the said
revision petition on 11.12.1995. On the other hand, petitioner Nos.1,
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
2 and 4 have filed W.P.No.10339 of 2012 seeking implementation of
the non-existing order dated 25.11.1985 passed by the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Shankarapally, and invited order in W.P.No.10339 of
2012 on 19.01.2016. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that
not only respondent No.5, but also the petitioners have approached
this Court with unclean hands. The settled principle of law is that the
parties have to approach the Writ Court with clean hands and put
forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or
suppressing material facts, especially when they are seeking equitable
relief in writ jurisdiction.
16. In Amar Singh v. Union of India and others 4, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that litigant, who comes to Court and invokes writs
jurisdiction, must come with clean hands and he cannot prevaricate
and take inconsistent stands because law is not a game of chess and
equitable nature of remedy must be governed by principle of uberrima
fides. The Court highlighted that such suppression of material facts
undermines the integrity of the judicial process, emphasizing the
importance of transparency and truthfulness in all interactions with
the court.
17. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India limited and ors. 5
the Hon'ble Apex Court held the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
(2011) 7 SCC 69
5 (2008)12 SCC 481
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative
writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is,
therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ
court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the
court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an
appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and
material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his
petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the
merits of the claim.
18. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioners in National Insurance Co. Ltd. (1 supra) is concerned,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a later bench of coordinate
jurisdiction cannot dismiss an earlier decision as per incuriam simply
because it appears incorrect due to overlooked aspects or insufficient
consideration. The earlier decision retains its binding effect unless
specifically overturned by a larger bench, emphasizing the importance
of judicial discipline and hierarchy in decision-making. And also held
that by relying upon the judgments of various courts State of Bihar v.
Kalika Kuer ((2003)5SCC448), G.L. Batra v. State of Haryana((2014) 13
SCC759), Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan DubeyAIR 1962 SC 83 , Katragadda
virayya v. katragadda venkata subbayya(1955 SCC online AP34) that
binding nature of decisions from earlier benches of coordinate
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
jurisdiction, emphasizing their role in maintaining consistency and
stability in legal interpretation across cases.
19. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
respondent No.5 in State of U.P (2 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
held the principle that the judicial restraint, judicial accountability,
and the limitation on judicial intervention. It emphasizes that judges
must exercise restraint and avoids encroaching into areas of policy-
making or administration, adhering strictly to their role as interpreters
of law. Judicial accountability ensures that judicial decisions are
subject to scrutiny through established legal processes like appeals
and reviews, maintaining transparency and adherence to legal
standards. Furthermore, the judgment underscores the importance of
respecting legal procedures and limitations on judicial intervention,
particularly in matters concerning criminal proceedings and
administrative decisions. This principle aims to uphold the integrity
and efficiency of the judicial system while ensuring fairness and
compliance with constitutional safeguards.
20. The judgment relied by both the learned counsel are not
applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on the
ground that respondent No.5 filed intra-court Writ Appeal No.401 of
2018 questioning the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.10339 of 2012 without disclosing the factum of filing of appeal
under RoR Act before appellate authority including passing of the
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
order in the said appeal on 30.08.2018 and at his instance, the
Hon'ble Division Bench disposed of the above said writ appeal on
10.09.2018. The writ appeal is continuation of the writ proceedings.
In such circumstances, the parties ought to have approached the
Court with clean hands. Similarly, the petitioners have also
suppressed several material facts and filed W.P.No.10339 of 2012
seeking implementation of non-existing order dated 25.11.1985 and
invited the order from this Court.
21. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case and to render substantial justice to the parties, the impugned
order passed by respondent No.3 is set aside and remitted the matter
on the sole ground that the appellate authority has not given
reasonable opportunity to the petitioners while disposing of the
appeal. However, this Court is not inclined to disturb the revenue
entries made in favour of respondent No.5 and the said entries are
subject to outcome of appeal proceedings vide Case No.C/383/2018.
22. It is also relevant to place on record that during pendency of the
writ petition, the State of Telangana, while repealing the Telangana
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, legislated new
enactment, namely, the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar
Passbooks Act, 2020 (Act No.9 of 2020), and the same was came into
force with effect from 29.10.2020. By virtue of repealing the Act,
1971, respondent No.3 is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
proceedings. However, as per the provisions of the new enactment Act
9 of 2020, Special Tribunal Rules were issued under G.O.Ms.No.4
Revenue (Assignment-I) Dept., dated 12.01.2021, constituting Special
Tribunals for every District for adjudication of pending cases, and the
said Special Tribunal is having jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
23. For the foregoing reasons as well as principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments, the impugned order
dated 30.08.2018 passed by respondent No.3 and consequential order
passed by respondent No.4 dated 29.10.2019 are set aside and the
matter is remitted back to Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District.
The Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy, is directed to dispose of the
appeal case No.C/383/2018 in accordance with law, after giving
notice and opportunity to the petitioners as well as respondent No.5,
including personal hearing, within a period of two (2) months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the parties are
directed to maintain 'status quo' in respect of the entries in the
revenue records of the subject property. It is needless to observe that
both parties are entitled to raise all the grounds which are available in
law.
24. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of
accordingly. No costs.
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 & 8121 of 2021
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date:16.07.2024
L.R. Copy to be marked - Yes.
mar
