Telangana High Court
Konda Ravi Goud vs National Commission For Schedule ... on 3 June, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.No.25009 OF 2023
Between:
Konda Ravi Goud
... Petitioner
And
National Commission For Schedule Castes,
Government of India & others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 03.06.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No.25009 OF 2023
% 03.06.2024
Between:
# Konda Ravi Goud
... Petitioner
And
$ National Commission For Schedule Castes,
Government of India & others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.Chandra Shekar
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri A.S.Vasuden, for R1
G.P. for Revenue for R2
G.P. for Home for R3
Sri P.Padma Rao, for R4.
? Cases Referred:
--
3 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No.25009 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri N.Chandra Shekar, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent
No.2, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on
behalf of respondent No.3 and Sri P.Padma Rao, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.
PRAYER:
2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as
under :
"...declaring the action of Respondent No 1 in proceeding with
the inquiry in File. No.014/270/2022-ESDW, filed by Smt.
Sheri Nirmala/4th Respondent, in spite of being made aware
that the matter under consideration before Respondent No.1
is subjudice, and pending before the learned II Additional
Junior Civil Judge Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar, vide OS No.
413 of 2022 and that the learned II Additional Junior Civil
Judge by its order dated 28/11/2022, allowed IA No.401 of
2022 in OS No 413 of 2022, granting ad-interim injunction in
favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent No.4; as
4 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and is against the Rule
4.2 (d) and (e) of the rules framed by Respondent No.1 itself
in its Handbook and also violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A
of The Constitution of India, and consequently direct
Respondent No.1 to stay all further proceedings in File.
No.014/270/202- ESDW pending before it..."
3. PERUSED THE RECORD.
A) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of
Respondent No.1, in particular, paragraph Nos. 10, 12, 13
and 14, read as under:
"10. In reply to Para No. 12 the contention raised by the
petitioner in this Para is incorrect and the same is denied. The
answering Respondent No. 1 after receipt of the
representation from Respondent No. 4 acting within its
constitutional mandate and in accordance with law, called for
action taken report from the concerned Government
authorities as stated in Para No. 1 supra. However, no reply
was provided to the answering Respondent No. 1, as such the
recommendation dated 23.06.2023 was made in accordance
with the procedure followed by the commission. Further the
allegation that no notice was issued to the Petitioner and
without hearing the petitioner the recommendation dated
23.06.2023 is factually incorrect and misleading. As stated in
the above Para No.12 the answering Respondent has called
5 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
for report from the concerned authority and as no reply was
received the recommendation dated 23.06.2023 was passed.
There is no procedure contemplated to issue notice to the
petitioner prior to taking any action on the complaint. Hence
the allegations in this para are denied.
12. In reply to Para Nos.14, 15 and 16 the allegations
raised by the petitioner in these paras are incorrect and
hence denied. In so far as the allegations that the Petitioner
was hopeful that this answering Respondent would abide by
the guidelines framed under Rule 4.2(d) and 4.2(e) of the
rules in its handbook and would stay further enquiry in the
matter and to the dismay of the Petitioner, the Respondent
did not show any inclination in staying the enquiry in spite of
being made aware that the matter under consideration before
him is sub-judice. The said allegation of the Petitioner is
incorrect and the same is denied. As stated in Para No. 13
this answering Respondent was not aware of any pending
proceedings in the matter, though the answering Respondent
has called for a status report from the revenue and police
departments, no information was furnished. Further as stated
above immediately on coming to know about the pending
matters through the representation of the Petitioner dated
14.08.2023 this Respondent has not taken up the matter.
13. I submit that the recommendations given by the
answering Respondent No. 1 are mere suggestions and are
not binding in nature. The action taken on the basis of the
6 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
said recommendations may be subject to further
corroboration. No further hearing in the matter has been
conducted by the answering Respondent No.1 after it was
found that the matter is sub-judice.
14. In reply to Para No. 17 the allegations in this Para are
denied. The petitioner is alleging false and baseless
allegations to mislead this Hon'ble Court. As stated in the
above paragraph after knowing that the matter is sub-judice,
the answering respondent no. 1 did not conduct any further
hearing in the matter. The action taken by the answering
respondent no.1 in the matter is the usual course of
procedure undertaken to discharge duties and functions as
provided under Article 338 of the Constitution of India for the
safeguards provided to the members of Scheduled Castes
community."
4. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments
made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner
in support of the present writ petition, is as under:
The petitioner is the absolute owner of land admeasuring
Ac.0.34 guntas in Sy.No.299/AA/1 and 299/AA/2 at Vattinagulapalli
village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having
purchased it by way of two Registered Sale Deeds bearing
document No.2446/2014 dated 16.05.2014 and document
7 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
No.12/2021 dated 27.02.2021. Since 2014, the petitioner had been
in possession of subject property and petitioner's name was
incorporated in revenue records/pahani and petitioner was also
issued patta and passbook (old). Pursuant to the amendments
made in the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbook Act,
2020, the petitioner's name was also incorporated in Dharani Portal
and the petitioner was issued E-Passbook (New).
It is further the case of the petitioner that on 23.07.2022, the
4th respondent along with some third parties descended on the land
owned by the petitioner and informed the petitioner that they
intend to conduct survey of land in Sy.No.299/E which is suit
property in O.S.NO.1162 of 2016 pending on the file of 14th
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. The said suit was filed by
the 4th respondent seeking partition of land admeasuring Ac.0.32
guntas in Survey No.299/E. The petitioner opposed the survey as
the land sought to be surveyed is not land in Sy.No.299/E but it is
land in survey No.299/AA/1 and 299/AA/2 which belongs to the
petitioner. The petitioner also informed the Advocate Commissioner
that the boundaries of the suit property in O.S.No.1162 of 2016
8 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
and the boundaries of the petitioner's subject property are
different.
It is further the case of the petitioner that, when 4th
respondent under the guise of preliminary decree in O.S.No.1162 of
2016 tried to encroach petitioner's property in Sy.No.299/AA/1 and
299/AA/2, petitioner filed an injunction suit against the 4th
respondent and three others on 17.08.2023 before the II Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, vide
O.S.No.413 of 2022, in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-31
guntas, in survey No.299/AA/1 and survey No.299/AA/2 at
Vattinagulapalli village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner also filed I.A.No.401 of 2022 in O.S.No.413 of 2022
seeking ad-interim injunction and the 4th respondent was arrayed
as respondent No.1 in I.A.No.401 of 2022 and I.A.No.401 of 2022
was allowed in favour of the petitioner on 28.11.2022 granting ad-
interim injunction in favour of the petitioner.
It is further the case of the petitioner that on 16.07.2023
petitioner received notice under Section 41-A Criminal Procedure
Code dated 12.07.2023 from ACP Madhapur, Cyberabad and the
petitioner came to know through the said notice that 4th respondent
9 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
filed a complaint against the petitioner on 28.06.2023 and on the
basis of the said complaint, the SHO Police Station Gachibowli,
Cyberabad registered crime vide FIR No.799 of 2023 dated
28.06.2023 and the petitioner submitted detailed reply to the said
notice and also submitted the necessary documents. From the
said complaint dated 28.06.2023, the petitioner came to know
about the proceedings pending before the 1st respondent, and upon
enquiry, petitioner came to know that the 4th respondent herein
filed a complaint before 1st respondent on 18.08.2022 which was
numbered as File No.014/270/2022-ESDW(62029) on 23.08.2022
by the 1st respondent.
It is further the case of the petitioner that the contention of
the 4th respondent in her complaint dated 18.08.2022 filed before
the 1st respondent that the land admeasuring Ac.0-32 guntas in
Sy.No.299/E of Vattinagulapalli village, is nominally reflected in the
name of one Saraswathi Bai in revenue records and that her
ancestor one B.Laxmaiah, purchased it long back and he was in
possession of it since 1970 and his name reflected in possessor
column and purchaser in the pahanies of the year 1971-1972. That
the 4th respondent obtained judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017
10 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
in O.S.No.1162 of 2016 on the file of 14th Additional District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District, and as per the said judgment, Advocate
Commissioner allotted 1/4th share to her and Saraswathi Bai, who
had no right over the subject property in collusion with the
petitioner herein created forged and fabricated documents in
respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas in survey No.299/E
and the petitioner along with his henchmen had illegally trespassed
and tried to occupy the subject property illegally and these persons
abused them in the name of caste, beat them with sticks and tried
to grab the property and kill them. The 4th respondent vide her
complaint dated 18.08.2022 requested the 1st respondent to take
deterrent action against the culprits and to issue direction to SHO
Gachibowli, Tahsildar, Gandipet, and District Collector, Ranga
Reddy District to take action against Anti social elements.
It is further the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the
complaint, the 1st respondent without issuing any notice and
without intimation to the petitioner and without hearing the
petitioner in its Minutes of Hearing vide file No.D14/270/2022-
ESDW, dated 23.06.2023 made the following recommendation.
11 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
"The matter was listed on 23.06.2023. The Commission
after hearing both the parties, recommended that the police
may lodge FIR under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 within 48 hours. The Revenue Department informed
that the possession of property belongs to the petitioner. In
view of this, the Commission further recommended that the
Concerned District Magistrate and Police officials may take
action in accordance with law to provide the relief sought by
the petitioner in respect of the possession of the property."
It is further the case of the petitioner that the 1st
respondent did not show any inclination in staying the enquiry
inspite of being made aware that the matter under consideration
before the 1st respondent is sub judice and is pending before the II
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar vide
O.S.No.413 of 2022 and the petitioner obtained ad-interim
injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the 4th respondent.
Aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent, in proceeding with
enquiry in File.No.014/270/2022-ESDW filed by the 4th respondent
inspite of being made aware that the matter under consideration
before respondent No.1 is subjudice and pending before II
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar vide
O.S.No.413 of 2022 and the II Additional Junior Civil Judge,
12 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad vide its Order dated
28.11.2022 allowed I.A.No.401 of 2022 in O.S.No.413 of 2022 and
granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner and against
respondent No.4, clearly in violation of Rule 4.2 (d and e) of the
Rules framed by the respondent No.1 itself in its Handbook. Hence,
this writ petition.
This court on 11.09.2023 passed interim orders in
favour of the petitioner as under:
"Notice before admission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take
out personal notice on respondent No.4 and file proof of
service in the Registry.
List on 18.09.2023, in the 'motion list'.
In the meantime, status quo to be maintained with
regard to the possession of land admeasuring Ac.0.34 guntas
in Sy.No.299/AA/1 and 299/AA/2, at Vattinagulapally Village,
Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District."
5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent,
and a specific plea is taken by the 1st respondent that the
respondent No.1 was not aware of any pending proceedings
in the matter and though the respondent No.1 had called for
13 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
a status report from the Revenue and Police Departments,
no information was furnished and that the 1st respondent on
coming to know about the pending matters through the
representation of the petitioner dated 14.08.2023, the 1st
respondent has not taken up the matter and no further
hearing in the matter had been conducted by the answering
respondent No.1 after it was found that the matter is
subjudice.
It is further stated by the 1st respondent that the 1st
respondent only discharged its duties and functions under
Article 338 of the Constitution of India for the safeguards
provided to the members of Schedule Caste Community and
that the 1st respondent did not conduct further hearing in
the matter.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
6. Rule 7.4.1(e) and (f) of Rules of Procedure of the
National Commission for Schedule Castes, Government of
India, New Delhi, is extracted hereunder:
14 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
"7.4.1(e) -No action will be taken on matters, which are
subjudice. Hence subjudice matter need not be referred to
the Commission as complaint(s).
(f) - Cases pending in courts or cases in which a court has
already given its final verdict may not be taken up afresh with
the Commission.
The Hand Book, 2016 of the National Commission for
Schedule Caste, New Delhi, dealing with procedure for
enquiry by NCSC, in particular, clause 4.2 (d) and 4.2 (e) is
extracted hereunder:
"4.2 (d) - No action will be taken on matters, which are
subjudice. Hence, subjudice matter need not be referred to
the Commission as complaint(s).
(e) - Cases pending in courts or cases in which a court has
already given its final verdict may not be taken up afresh with
the Commission."
7. A bare perusal of the above referred rule position clearly
indicates that the 1st respondent cannot proceed in matters which
are subjudice and the 1st respondent cannot take any action in such
matters, and such matters which are subjudice need not be
referred to the 1st respondent as complaints.
15 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
8. A bare perusal of the above referred rules which is the
procedure for enquiry by NCSC also indicates that the cases
pending in Courts or cases in which a Court has already given its
final verdict may not be taken up afresh with the commission.
9. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st
respondent clearly indicates that the 1st respondent
immediately on coming to know about the pending matters
through the representation of the petitioner dated
14.08.2023 had not taken up the matter and the same is
kept pending.
10. Taking into consideration the Rule position i.e., 7.4.1
(e) and (f) of Rules of Procedure of National Commission for
Schedule Castes, Government of India, New Delhi and Rule
4.2 (d) and (e) of the Rules framed by the respondent No.1
itself in its Handbook and duly considering the averments
made in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent
(referred to and extracted above), this Court opines that the
petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the
present writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed as prayed for. The interim orders dated 11.09.2023
16 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
directing Status quo to be maintained with regard to the
possession of land admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas, in
Sy.No.299/AA/1 and 299/AA/2 at Vattinagulapalli village,
Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, shall continue
till O.S.No.413 of 2022 filed by the petitioner on the file of II
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy
District, is disposed of finally. However there shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition,
shall stand closed.
___________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Date: 03.06.2024
Note : L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o.Yvkr/ktm
17 SN,J
wp_25009_2023
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No.25009 OF 2023
(L.R.copy to be marked)
Date: 03.06.2024.
Yvkr/ktm
