Telangana High Court
Podila Jayasree vs P.V. Rajeshwar Rao on 18 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.82, 85, 86, 87, 93, 94, 95 AND 101 OF 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice):
Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel
represents M/s.Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for the
appellants, Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel represents
Sri M.Pranav, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents in
W.A.No.82 of 2025 and Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel
represents Sri M.S. Achyuth Bharthwaj, learned counsel for the
unofficial respondents in W.A.Nos.86, 87, 93, 94, 95 and 101 of
2025.
2. Since the common order of learned single Judge passed in
batch of Writ Petitions is subject matter of challenge, on the joint
request of the parties, the matters were analogously heard on
admission and decided by this common judgment.
3. In this batch of Writ Appeals, the common order dated
11.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.Nos.16967, 19071,
19081, 19087, 19089, 19104, 19113, 19128 of 2024 and I.A.No.3
of 2022 in W.P.No.44802 of 2022 is subject matter of challenge.
The relevant portion of the common order reads thus:
HACJ & RY,J
WA_82_2025 & Batch
" The case of the writ petitioners is that their predecessors-
in-title were granted Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) vide
Proceedings No.M/475l1975 dated 31.08.1976 and
subsequently they acquired various extents of lands from the
ORC holders. Nearly four decades later, the unofficial
respondents have filed applications disputing the nature of the
enquiry conducted under the said Act.
Since prima facie the writ petitioners have been in
possession and enjoyment of the subject property for more than
four decades, the issues as to whether the predecessors-in-title
of the petitioners were granted ORCs by following due process of
law, and whether such rights are validly transferred to the
petitioners, requires to be adjudicated at the time of final
hearing. It is settled law that settled position cannot be
disturbed to unsettle, at this length time.
For the aforesaid reasons, the vacate stay petitions are
dismissed and the interim orders granted earlier by this Court
are made absolute."
(Emphasis Supplied)
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that
although Writ Petitions are still pending and by impugned interim
order vacate stay petitions filed by the appellants are dismissed,
the Writ Appeals can be entertained in view of judgment of the
Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Chunilal Nanda 1.
5. The other side supported the impugned order and agreed
that at best a direction may be issued to the learned single Judge
to decide the pending Writ Petitions on merits at the earliest.
(2006) 5 SCC 399
HACJ & RY,J
WA_82_2025 & Batch
6. A careful reading of impugned order shows that the Writ
Petitions are still pending and interim order granted by learned
single Judge was not vacated and applications filed for vacate stay
were dismissed. In this backdrop, it is to be seen whether these
Writ Appeals can be entertained.
7. In The University of Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar,
Central University Campus (P.O), Gachibowli, Hyderabad v.
Sadik Hussain and Others 2, a Division Bench of this Court
considered Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and opined that it
provides an appeal from a 'judgment' of single Judge in exercise of
original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. The previous judgment
of a Division Bench in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D.Kania 3
was considered and it was held that 'orders falling under
categories (iv) and (v) are not 'judgments' for the purpose of filing
appeals provided under the Letter Patent'. Categories (iv) and (v)
read thus:
"(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress
of the case till its culmination in the final judgment.
(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some
prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the
rights and obligations of the parties."
2013 SCC OnLine AP 342
1981 AIR 1786
HACJ & RY,J
WA_82_2025 & Batch
Lastly, the Division Bench recorded as under:
" At the cost of the repetition, it is to be noticed that the learned
Single Judge has not decided the rights and obligations of
the parties and only passed interlocutory orders and hence
in our considered view the same does not satisfy the
trappings of the judgments as defined under Clause 15 of
the Letters Patent and it will be appropriate for the
appellant to file vacate petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal
is disposed of with the said observation."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), on which
heavy reliance is placed, the Supreme Court held as under:
"15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the
pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following
categories:
(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in
controversy in the main case.
(ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and
directly affects the final decision in the main case.
(iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question
which is not the subject-matter of the main case.
(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of
the case till its culmination in the final judgment.
(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some
prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the
rights and obligations of the parties.
16. The term "judgment" occurring in clause 15 of the Letters
Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined
in Section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1
CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally
and conclusively determine the rights of parties with
regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have
finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will
affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the
parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to
HACJ & RY,J
WA_82_2025 & Batch
(iii) above, are, therefore, "judgments" for the purpose of filing
appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders
falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not "judgments" for the
purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent."
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Shyam Sel And
Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited 4 took a
similar view.
10. The Supreme Court laid down the litmus test to determine
whether order impugned is a 'judgment' within the meaning of
Letters Patent. If the present matter is examined on the anvil of
said principles, it will be clear that (i) by impugned order the
learned single Judge has not finally decided the question or issue
in controversy in the main case, (ii) the impugned order has not
decided any issue which materially or directly affects final decision
in the Writ Petitions, (iii) the impugned order does not have any
impact on a collateral issue or question which was not subject
matter of main case.
11. The impugned order does not give any final finding. It can
be seen from yet another angle, if ultimately Writ Petitions are
dismissed, the appellants will be able to pursue their pending
appeals before the appropriate authority and, therefore, it cannot
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282
HACJ & RY,J
WA_82_2025 & Batch
be said that the order impugned herein has any element of finality
in it.
12. Conversely, (i) the impugned order is a routine order to
facilitate the progress of the case till culmination of final judgment
and (ii) no rights or obligations of the parties were finally
determined. Thus, a conjoint reading of both the judgments
referred above leads to only one inevitable conclusion that the
impugned order does not fall within the ambit of 'judgment' under
Letter Patent. Thus, the present Writ Appeals cannot be
entertained. However, in the interest of justice, we are only
inclined to observe that the learned single Judge may make
endeavour to decide the pending Writ Petitions expeditiously.
13. With the aforesaid observations and without expressing any
opinion on merits, the Writ Appeals are disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
18th February, 2025.
TJMR
