Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Khorshed Shapoor Chenai,Adarsh ... vs The Joint Collector, Medak District And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1646 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1646 Tel
Judgement Date : 7 August, 2025

Telangana High Court

Khorshed Shapoor Chenai,Adarsh ... vs The Joint Collector, Medak District And ... on 7 August, 2025

 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
                 WRIT PETITION No.33458 of 2012

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.Rakesh Kumar,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent this writ petition is taken up for

disposal.

2. This Writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:-

"to declare the order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the first respondent dismissing the Revision in file no.F3/5227/2006-F3/40/Assgn/2006 filed by the petitioner under section 4-(A)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition on Transfer) Act 1977 for default without giving any notice to the petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice as being arbitrary and unjust ."

3. Brief facts stated in this writ petition are that the petitioner claims to

be owner of land admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas in Sy.No.128 of Ramaipally

Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District, having acquired the same

through registered sale deed bearing document No.1740 of 1987 dated

26.05.1987. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3, claiming that

the subject land is Government Land issued show cause notice dated

05.06.2004, thereafter, petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on

26.06.2004 and without considering the same, respondent No.3 passed

resumption order dated 02.07.2004. Challenging the same, petitioner under

Section 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition on

Transfer) Act 1977 (herein after referred as Assigned Lands Act) filed

Appeal No.C/2307/2004 and the respondent No.2 vide order dated

18.02.2006 had dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the order dated

18.02.2006 in Appeal No.C/2307/2004, petitioner under Section 4-(A)(2) of

the Assigned Lands Act, filed Revision bearing No.F3/5227/2006-

F3/40/Assgn/2006 and respondent No.1 vide order dated 02.07.2012,

passed the following order:-

".... On the other hand the counsel for the revision petitioner has not appeared on any of the occasion after filing the revision. This matter belongs to the year 2006 and was dragged on till now i.e., for a period of (6) years. Even in these circumstances the parties failed to avail the opportunity afforded to them.

In view of the above the revision petition is dismissed."

Challenging the order dated 02.07.2012 passed in Revision bearing

No.F3/5227/2006-F3/40/Assgn/2006, petitioners filed this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the procedure,

revenue authorities intimates the dates of hearing the revision to the

parties. However, in the present case respondent No.1 failed to intimate the

hearing dates. Learned counsel further submits that even in the impugned

order dated 02.07.2012, there is no reference of any notice having been

issued to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the Tahsildar,

Manoharabad Revenue Mandal, Medak District, vide notice bearing

No.B/124 of 2017 dated 25.02.2017, tried to dispossess the petitioner from

the subject land and challenging the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.9703 of

2017 and this Court vide order dated 27.03.2017, passed the following

order:-

"In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the Judgment dated 21.12.2016, passed by this Court in WP.No.44497 of 2016 setting aside the impugned notices dated 25-02-2017 issued by the 2nd respondent. However, this will not preclude the 2nd respondent from issuing fresh notice furnishing all the basic jurisdictional facts necessary for invoking his jurisdiction under Section 3 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and take action, thereafter, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1

without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed

impugned order dated 02.07.2012 in Revision bearing No.F3/5227/2006-

F3/40/Assgn/2006 and if the petitioner would get an opportunity of

hearing, she would bring all facts and the above order before respondent

No.1 and pray this Court to set aside the order dated 02.07.2012 passed in

Revision bearing No.F3/5227/2006-F3/40/Assgn/2006.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 3 pray this Court to pass appropriate orders.

8. Heard and perused the material available on record. Upon perusal, it

is noticed that the petitioner was not intimated about the dates of hearing

the revision and even the respondent No.1 in the impugned order dated

02.07.2012 in Revision bearing No.F3/5227/2006-F3/40/Assgn/2006, failed

to mention about any notice having been issued to the petitioner. It appears

that the respondent No.1, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner, mechanically had passed the impugned order dated 02.07.2012

in Revision bearing No.F3/5227/2006-F3/40/Assgn/2006, hence, this

Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 02.07.2012 is liable to

be set aside.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 02.07.2012 in

Revision bearing No.F3/5227/2006-F3/40/Assgn/2006 is hereby set aside

and accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent

No.1 to hear the Revision bearing No.F3/5227/2006-F3/40/Assgn/2006

afresh and after issuing notice, intimating the hearing dates of the revision

and after giving fair opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, the

respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with

law and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is made clear that this

Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it is for

the respondent No.1 to examine all facts and circumstances of the case and

pass orders.

10. With the above directions this writ petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as

to costs.

______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR,J 07.08.2025 Su

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter