Telangana High Court
Mohd. Chand Pasha vs The State Of Telangana on 31 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
WRIT PETITION No.3615 OF 2019
Mohd. Chand Pasha S/o Late Mohd.Ismail,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Pan Shop Business,
R/o H.No.2-95, Ambedkarnagar,
Manthani Village & Mandal, Peddapalli District.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana rep. by the
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others.
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 31.07.2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may Yes/No
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish Yes/No
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_____________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No.3615 OF 2019
% Dated 31.07.2024
# Mohd. Chand Pasha S/o Late Mohd.Ismail,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Pan Shop Business,
R/o H.No.2-95, Ambedkarnagar,
Manthani Village & Mandal, Peddapalli District.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana rep. by the
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri T.Ranjith Kumar,
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri P.Rajagopal Reddy
and G.P for Revenue
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2015(5) ALT 290
2. 1996 LawSuit(AP) 906
3. (2010) 8 SCC 467
4. (2009) 9 SCC 352
5. 2002 (5) ALD 398
6. (2019) 3 SCC 530
7. (1994) 1 SCC 1
8. 2003 5 ALD 654
9. 1979 2 SCC 368
10. 1990 4 SCC 594
11. 2006 5 ALT 1
12. 2024(3) ALD 749
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.3615 of 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the
orders of the 3rd respondent dated 27.10.2018
in Revision Petition No.D1/521/2016, in
confirming the order passed by the 4th
respondent in Appeal File No.A/1482/2015
dated 19.10.2015 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of
principles of natural justice and also violative of
Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution
India and contrary to the provisions of Records
of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act
and quash the same ..."
Brief facts of the case:
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and
possessor of land to an extent of Acs.0.13 guntas in
Survey No.1014 situated at Manthani Village and Mandal
Peddapally District(erstwhile Karimnagar District). Having
acquired the same from his father namely late Mohd.
Ismail, who inturn acquired the same from the petitioner's
grandfather namely Fateh Mohammed which is his self-
acquired property. He further stated that his father name
was recorded as pattadar in Pahani for the year 1963-64
and after his demise the petitioner is continuing in
possession of the subject land, without any interruption.
2.1. While things stood thus, respondent No.6 had filed
suit in O.S.No.178 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge, Manthani seeking declaration of title and perpetual
injunction against him and during the pendency of the
said suit Fakrunnisa W/o Late Aziz and her son have filed
another O.S.No.53 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge
Manthani, seeking declaration of title and claiming ¼
share in the suit scheduled property and recovery of
possession. When the above suits are pending,
respondent No.6 again filed appeal before respondent No.4
seeking rectification of revenue records by mutating his
name in place of petitioner alleging that his grandfather
executed will deed dated 22.02.1964 in favour of his
father and he acquired the said property from his father
and basing on the same, respondent No.4 initiated the
proceedings exercising the powers conferred under the
provisions of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattdar Pass
Books Act, 1971('Act' for brevity) and further stated that
he filed a detailed counter denying the allegation made by
the respondent No.6. During the pendency of the said
appeal, respondent No.6 filed W.P.No.4372 of 2015
without impleading the petitioner as party respondent
No.2 before this Court, questioning the action of
respondent No.2 therein in contemplating to lay public
road over the land in Survey No.1014, wherein this Court
granted Status Quo. Respondent No.4 without properly
considering the contentions of the petitioner and without
verifying the records, allowed the Appeal file
No.A1/1482/2015 on 19.10.2015 deleting the name of the
petitioner's father from patta and possession column of
the pahanies for the year 1963-64 to 2011-12 and deleting
the name of the petitioner from the patta and possession
columns of pahanies for the year 2012-13 to till date and
further recording the name of Fatheh Mohammad in patta
column of pahanies from 1963-64 to 1995-96 and
including the name of the father of respondent No.6
herein namely Mohd.Afzal in possession column of
pahanies from the year 1963-64 to till date and recording
the name of Fateh Mohammad in the patta column from
the year 1996-97 to till date and cancelling the virasath
proceedings dated 16.02.2012 as they are irregular and
illegal.
2.2. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed revision
before Joint collector, Peddapalli-respondent No.3
invoking the provisions of Section 9 of Act. During the
pendency revision petition, respondent No.6 withdrawn
the suit in O.S.No.178 of 2011 on 28.01.2016. The
revisional authority without properly considering the
grounds raised in the revision petition and the
contentions of the petitioner and also without verifying the
records dismissed the Revision petition by its order dated
27.10.2018. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed
present writ petition.
2.3. The claim of respondent No.6 is that the subject
property belongs to his grandfather namely Fateh
Mohammad and he is having five sons namely late Md.
Haneef, late Md.Bangi Sahab, late Md.Ismail, late
Md.Afzal Miya and Md.Haneem. The above said property
i.e., Acs.0.13 guntas in Survey No.1014 was allotted
towards share of Fateh Mohammad and till his death he
lived along with father of respondent No.6 and the father
of respondent No.6 has taken care and rendered services
to Fateh Mohammad till his death. During his lifetime
Fateh Mohammad had executed will deed dated
22.02.1964, in favour of respondent No.6's father and
after his death respondent No.6's father is continuing in
the subject property and his name was recorded in the
possessor column in the revenue records and he died on
25.01.1996. Since then respondent No.6 is in continuous
possession of the subject property.
2.4. While things stood thus, respondent No.6 came to
know that in patta and possession column of Pahanies of
the year 1963-64 name of Fateh Mohammad has been
rounded off and the name of Ismail who is the father of
petitioner has been written. After came to know about the
said wrong entry, respondent No.6 had approached the
respondent Nos.4 and 5 and submitted representation
requesting them to conduct enquiry and take necessary
steps for deleting of the name of the petitioner's father and
correct the revenue entries. Basing on the said
application, respondent No.4 directed respondent No.5 to
conduct enquiry and submit report. Pursuant to the
same, respondent No.5 after conducting detailed enquiry
and after verification of the records submitted detailed
report No.B/954/2015, dated 27.08.2015. Pursuant to
the said report, respondent No.4 initiated the proceedings
and issued notices to the petitioner as well as respondent
No.6 directing them to submit their grievance.
Accordingly, the petitioner filed counter by engaging
counsel similarly respondent No.6 also appeared before
respondent No.4 through his counsel.
2.5 Respondent No.4 after considering the contentions of
both the parties and also after due verification of the
entire records, held that the name of the Fateh
Mohammad has been rounded off in the Pahani for the
year 1963-64 and the name of Mohd.Ismail is written with
different ink in the absence of any proceedings, especially
without issuing notice to the affected parties and allowed
the appeal by its order 19.10.2015 for deletion of name of
the petitioner's father from patta and possession column
of the Pahani for the year 1963-64 to 2011-12 and
inclusion of Fateh Mohammad name in Patta column and
Mohammad Afzal, who is father of respondent No.6, name
in possession column. Aggrieved by the said order,
petitioner filed revision petition, before respondent No.3
and revisional authority dismissed the revision petition
confirming the order of respondent No.4.
3. Heard Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior
counsel, representing T.Ranjith Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajagopal Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that respondent No.6 had approached respondent No.4
and 5 and filed application for correction of the revenue
entries which were entered in the year 1963-64, after
lapse of long period of time and basing on the same,
respondent No.4 initiated proceedings and passed the
impugned order dated, 19.10.2015 though respondent
No.4 is not having jurisdiction to entertain the application
of respondent No.6. Hence, the order passed by
respondent No.4 is liable to be declared as illegal and
without jurisdiction. He further contented that
respondent No.6 father is claiming rights over the property
basing on the will deed dated 22.02.1964, executed by
Fateh Mohammad. Unless and until the said will is
established and proved before competent Civil Court
neither the father of respondent No.6 nor respondent No.6
are entitled to claim rights over the property and revenue
authorities while exercising the powers conferred under
the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder are
not having jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties
basing on the alleged will deed.
4.1 He further contended that father of the petitioner
namely Mohd. Ismail continued in the revenue records
since 1963-64, in such circumstances, respondent No.4
ought to have directed respondent No.6 to approach the
competent Civil Court, on the other hand passed the
order dated 19.10.2015 on the alleged ground that the
petitioner's father name was wrongly mentioned in the
patta and possession column in the pahani for the year
1963-64 with different ink and handwriting basing on the
allegation that petitioner's father worked as attender in
Tahsildar office, Manthani. He also contended that merely
because the petitioner's father worked as attender in the
Tahsildar office, in the absence of any Iota of evidence,
respondent No.4 and respondent No.3 held that the name
of petitioner's father is fradulently entered in the Pahani
for the year 1963-64. He further contended that
respondent No.6 had filed comprehensive suit in
O.S.No.178 of 2011 seeking declaration of title and for
grant of perpetual injunction on the file of Senior Civil
Judge, Manthani, subsequent to passing of the order by
respondent No.4 on 19.10.2015, he withdrawn the suit on
28.01.2016 even without establishing his right and title
over the property.
4.2 Learned senior counsel vehemently contended that
respondent No.6 had approached respondent No.4 seeking
rectification of the revenue entries without producing any
iota of evidence, on the other hand, respondent No.4
shifted the entire burden against the petitioner that he
failed to produce any evidence that his father name was
entered in the Pahani in the patta and possession column
basing on the particular document. He further contended
that the initial burden lies upon the party who approaches
the Court for seeking relief. Hence, the impugned order
passed by respondent No.4 is contrary to law. The
revisional authority-respondent No.3 without considering
the grounds raised in the revision petition simply
confirmed the order of appellate authority-respondent
No.4 without assigning any reasons and the impugned
order passed by respondent No.3 dated 27.10.2018
confirming the order of respondent No.4 is contrary to law.
4.3 In support of his contention he relied upon the
following judgments:
1. G. Prabhakar Vs. State of Telangana, Rep. by
its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department and
others 1.
2015 (5) ALT 290
2. Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie
Sangam, Rep. By Its General Secretary, Geetha
Ramaswamy V. K. Suresh Reddy 2.
3. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune
Municipal Transport and others 3
4. In Santosh Kumar Shivgonda Patil Vs.
Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others 4.
5. Sri Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building
Society, Hyderabad v. Joint Collector, R.R.
District, Hyderabad and others 5
5. Sri P.Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial
respondent No.6 submits that the property belongs to his
grandfather namely Fateh Mohammad and his name was
entered in the Pahanies for the year 1963-64 as pattadar
and Fateh Mohammad along with respondent No.6's
father namely Md.Afzal cultivated the land and during his
lifetime he executed will deed in favour of his father dated
22.02.1964 and his father died on 25.01.1996 and since
then respondent No.6 is in possession and enjoyment of
the subject property with absolute rights and his name
was entered in the possession column in Pahanies and the
petitioner father is not having any right, interest over the
subject property. When the respondent No.6 came to
know about the wrong entries in the pahanies, he had
approached respondent No.4 and submitted application to
1996 LawSuit(AP) 906
(2010) 8 SCC 467
(2009) 9 SCC 352
2002 (5) ALD 398
rectify the revenue entries made in name of the
petitioner's father, pursuant to the same respondent No.4
directed respondent No.5 to conduct enquiry and submit
report accordingly. Respondent No.5 has conducted
detailed enquiry and submitted report and basing on the
same, respondent No.4 has rightly initiated the
proceedings and passed the impugned order on
19.10.2015 after following the due procedure as
contemplated under the provisions of Act and Rules made
thereunder. He further submits that respondent No.4 has
held that name of Fateh Mohammad is rounded up and
the name of petitioner's father is written in Telugu
language with different hand writing in the pahanies for
the year 1963-64 in the absence of any mutation
proceedings and the said order was confirmed by the
revisional authority while exercising the powers conferred
under Section 9 of Act on 27.10.2018. He further submits
that the petitioner played fraud and got his name entered
in the revenue records and if any person by playing fraud
obtained any order, the same can be questioned and
limitation aspect will not apply and the appellate authority
and revisional authority has rightly passed the impugned
orders.
6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharam Singh(dead)
through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Prem
Singh(dead) Through Legal representatives 6,
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
appearing on behalf of official respondents submits that
revisional authority- respondent No.4 after due verification
of the records as well as after considering the contentions
of the respective parties rightly passed the order on
19.10.2015 and respondent No.3 rightly confirmed the
said order and there is no illegality or irregularity in the
said order and the petitioner has to approach competent
Civil Court and he is not entitled any relief in the writ
petition.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by
respective parties and after perusal of the records, it
reveals that admittedly the subject property to an extent
of Acs.0.13 guntas in Survey No.1014, situated at
Manthani Village and Mandal belonging to one Fateh
Mohammad, who is the grandfather of the petitioner and
respondent No.6 and his name was mutated in the
(2019) 3 SCC 530
revenue records. It further appears that Fateh
Muhammad is having five sons namely late Md.Haneef,
late Md.Bangi Sahab, late Md.Ismail, late Md.Afzal Miya,
Md.Haneem.
9. The claim of the writ petitioner is that subject
property devolved upon his father late Mohd. Ismail and
his name was recorded in the revenue records in patta
and possession column from the year 1963-64. After his
death, the petitioner succeeded the said property.
Whereas respondent No.6 is claiming the rights over the
property from his father late Mohd Afzal. The specific
claim of respondent No.6 is that the subject property was
allotted towards the share of Fateh Mohammad, who is
none other than his grandfather, in partition and his
name was entered in revenue records i.e., pahanies, and
he lived along with his father namely Md.Afzal and his
father taken care of his grandfather till his death and
cultivated the land and his name was entered in the
possession column and his grandfather had executed will
deed dated 22.02.1964 in favour of his father and after
the death of his grandfather his father was continuously
in possession with absolute rights, after his death,
respondent No.6 is in possession of the subject property.
10. The further claim of respondent No.6 is that at the
instance of the petitioner's father his grandfather name
i.e., Fateh Mohammad and his father's name i.e, Mohd
Afzal were removed from patta column as well as
possession column and petitioner obtained Virasath
proceedings bearing No.B1/6/2011-12, dated 16.02.2012
from Tahsildar, Manthani behind their back. Immediately
after came to know about the same, respondent No.6
approached respondent No.4 and 5 and submitted
representation requesting them to correct the revenue
entries. It further appears from the records that basing
on the application submitted by respondent No.6,
respondent No.4 directed respondent No.5 to conduct
enquiry and to submit report. Accordingly, respondent
No.5 submitted a detailed report vide proceeding
No.B/954/2015, dated 27.08.2015 stating that he
conducted an enquiry on 24.08.2015 and during the
course of enquiry, both the parties were present before
him and the petitioner himself stated that he is not having
any document regarding mutation of his father name i.e.,
Mohd Ismail, in the revenue records and that he does not
know how the name of his father is entered in Pahanies as
pattadar and possessor. He further observed in the report
that name of the petitioner's father i.e., Md.Ismail was
wrongly entered in the Pahani pertaining to 1963-64.
Basing on the said report, respondent No.4 initiated the
proceedings in File No.A/1482/2015 and after considering
the contentions of the respective parties, passed order
dated 19.10.2015 by setting aside the entries made in
favour of the petitioner's father from patta column in the
Pahanies for the year 1963-64 and 1995-96 and also
deleted his name from the possession column and further
held that father of respondent No.6 namely Mohammad
Afzal may be recorded in possession column of the
pahanies of the year 1963-64 and cancelled the virasath
proceedings dated 16.02.2012 declaring it as irregular.
11. It further reveals from the record that respondent
No.6 filed a suit in O.S.No.178 of 2011 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Manthani seeking
declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the very
same subject property against the petitioner and two
others and he withdrawn the said suit on 28.01.2016.
During the pendency of the above suit one Fakrunnisa
W/o Late Aziz and her son have filed suit O.S.No.53 of
2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Manthani seeking
declaration and recovery of possession in respect of ¼
share in the said property and the said suit was dismissed
on 09.08.2013. Aggrieved by the same, they have filed
appeal in A.S.No.14 of 2019 and the same was dismissed
on 03.01.2022. The unofficial respondent No.6 has filed
W.P.No.4372 of 2015 questioning action of respondent
therein in contemplating to lay public road over the land
and the said writ petition was closed on 10.06.2024 on
the ground that respondents therein are not interfering
with the possession of the subject property.
12. The records further reveals that originally Fateh
Mohammad name was recorded in the Pahanies for the
year 1963-64 as patta holder, respondent No.4 after due
verification of the record, held that Fateh Mohammad
name was rounded up in the Pahani pertaining to 1963-
64 and the name of the petitioner's father i.e, Md.Ismail
was written with different ink and handwriting and also
held that before correction of the said entries, the then
Tahsildar, Manthani Mandal had not issued any notice to
effected parties and on the said ground passed the
impugned order dated 19.10.2015, and the same was
confirmed by respondent No.3 in revision petition on
27.10.2018 holding that the petitioner's father name is
written in Telugu language with different ink and different
handwriting by rounding off the name of Fateh
Mohammad in the Pahani for the year 1963-64 and the
father of the petitioner worked as a attender in Tahsildar
office and his name was recorded fraudulently, especially
without sanctioning of the mutation.
13. The contention raised by the learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner is that respondent No.6 had made
application for correction of the revenue entries after lapse
of more than 25 years and basing on the said application,
respondent No.4 passed the impugned order and the same
is contrary to the provisions of the 'Act' as well as under
law and respondent No.6 had not filed appeal questioning
the virasat proceedings dated 16.02.2012 and basing on
the report submitted by respondent No.5, respondent No.4
passed the impugned order dated 19.10.2015 and the
same is without jurisdiction is concerned, respondent
No.4 while passing the impugned order dated 19.10.2015,
held that in the absence of any mutation proceedings,
name of respondent No.6's grandfather i.e., Fateh
Mohammad and his father's name Late Mohd.Afzal were
rounded off in pahani for the year 1963-64 in patta
column and in possession column and included the
petitioner's father name Mohd. Ismail with different ink
and different hand writing.
14. It is undisputed fact that as per the provisions of
Section 5(5) or 5(B) of the Act, the aggrieved party has to
file appeal questioning the revenue entries or virasath
proceedings within prescribed time limit from the date of
communication of the order and against the said order,
remedy of revision is provided under Section 9 of the Act.
15. In G. Prabhakar Vs. State of Telangana(1 supra),
Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangam(2 supra),
Sulochana Chandrakant Galande(3 supra), Santosh Kumar
Shivgonda Patil(4 supra), it was held that the parties have to
avail the remedy of appeal within the period of reasonable time,
in the absence of any time limit, the reasonable period depends
upon the facts and circumstance of the case.
16. In the case on hand, the appellate authority while
passing the impugned order dated 19.10.2015, held that father
of the petitioner name was mentioned in the pahani 1963-64 by
rounding off the name of the Fateh Mohammad in the absence
of any proceedings and his name was entered in patta and
possession column fraudulently. It is settle principle of law that
if any person obtained order or judgment by playing fraud,
the same can be questioned at any stage including
collateral proceedings and procedural and technical
aspects will not come in the way.
17. In Dharam Singh(dead) through Legal Representatives
and others Vs. Prem Singh(dead) through Legal
representatives Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while entries
in revenue records are generally presumed correct, this
presumption does not extend to entries made fraudulently or
surreptitiously. Such entries lack legal validity and cannot
establish possessory rights.
18. In S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath and
others 7 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a Judgment or decree
obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est
in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first Court or
by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every
Court whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any
Court even in collateral proceedings and period of limitation is
not applicable and the same can be declared as nullity.
Whereas, in the case on hand, respondent No.3-revisional
authority, without considering the contentions of the petitioner
simply extracted the memorandum of grounds and counter of
the unofficial respondents, dismissed the revision petition and
(1994) 1 SCC 1
confirmed the order of respondent No.4-appellate authority,
without assigning any reasons and the same is gross violation of
principles of natural justice.
19. In Sri Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building
Society, Hyderabad v. Joint Collector, R.R. District,
Hyderabad and others, the judgment relied upon by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner was set aside by the
Division bench in Konkana Ravinder Goud and others
Vs.Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society,
Hyderabad 8.
20. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner has
filed statutory revision under Section 9 of 'Act' by raising
several grounds in the memorandum of revision petition,
aggrieved by the order of respondent No.4 dated
19.10.2015. Respondent No.3 simply extracted the
memorandum of grounds raised by the petitioner and
contentions of respondent No.6 in the counter affidavit
and dismissed the revision petition confirming the order of
the appellate authority dated 27.10.2018 without
assigning any reasons.
2003 5 ALD 654
21. In fact, reasons are heart and soul of the order
passed by the authority. Non-recording of reasons could
lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to
the affected party and secondly, more particularly,
hamper the proper administration of justice.
22. In Guridial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab 9, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"... "Reasons" are the links between the materials
on which certain conclusions are based and the
actual conclusions..."
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.N.Mukherjee v.
Union of India 10, while emphasizing the importance of
recording of reasons for decisions by the Administrative
authorities and Tribunals observed that:
"administrative process will best be vindicated by
clarity in its exercise".
24. In the case of Mc.Dermott International Inc. v.
Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others 11, the Apex Court
clarified the rationality behind providing of reasons and
stated the principle as follows:
"... Reason is a ground or motive for a belief or a
course of action, a statement in justification or
explanation of belief or action. it is in this sense
1979 2 SCC 368
1990 4 SCC 594
2006 5 ALT 1
that the award must state reasons for the
amount awarded. The rationale of the
requirement of reasons is that reasons assure
that the arbitrator has not acted capriciously.
Reasons reveal the grounds on which the
Arbitrator reached the conclusion which
adversely affects the interests of a party. The
contractual stipulation of reasons means, as
held in Poyser and Mills' Arbitration in Re,
'proper adequate reasons'. Such reasons shall
not only be intelligible but shall be a reason
connected with the case which the Court can see
is proper. Contradictory reasons are equal to
lack of reasons..."
25. In Kasarla Yadagiri (died per L.Rs. and others v.
State of Telangana 12, this Court while taking into
consideration the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that quasi judicial authority while exercising
revisional powers conferred under Section 9 of the 'RoR
Act' ought to have considered contentions of respective
parties, material evidence on record and pass orders by
giving reasons.
26. It is already observed in preceding paras that
respondent No.3, while exercising the quasi-judicial
powers conferred under the provisions of Act, without
considering the contentions of the respective parties and
without giving reasons dismissed the revision petition and
the same is contrary to the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra and is liable to be set
2024 (3) ALD 749
aside and the matter required reconsideration by the
revisional authority.
27. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the
notice of this Court that 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 Pass Books Act,
2020(Act No. 9 of 2020) and the same came into effect
from 29.10.2020. By virtue of repealing Act, 1971 Joint
Collector-respondent No.3 is not having jurisdiction to
adjudicate the Revision Petition under Section 9 of ROR
Act, 1971. However, as per the provisions of the new
enactment (Act 9 of 2020) Special Tribunals were
constituted under G.O.Ms.No.4 Revenue (Assignment.I)
Dept., dated 12.01.2021 in every district for adjudication
of pending cases. Hence the Revision Case
No.D1/521/2016 has to be adjudicated by the Special
Tribunal, Peddapalli District.
28. For the foregoing reasons as well as precedent
decisions, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3,
dated 27.10.2018 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set
aside and the matter is remitted back to Special Tribunal,
Peddapalli District with a direction to dispose of the
Revision Case No.D1/521/2016 and pass appropriate
orders, in accordance with law, after giving notice and
opportunity to the petitioner as well as unofficial
respondents including personal hearing, within a period of
three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Till such time the parties are directed to maintain
Status-Quo obtaining as on today in respect of the entries
made in the revenue records with regard to the subject
property. It is needless to observe that both the parties
are entitled to raise all the grounds which are available
under law.
29. With the above direction, the writ petition is
disposed of, accordingly. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
31st July, 2024
Note: L.R.Copy to be marked: 'Yes'
2. Furnish C.C within three(3) days.
BO.
PSW
