Telangana High Court
Polsani Thirupathi Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 24 January, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
W.A.No.67 of 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice)
Sri P. Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant;
Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for
Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri A. Prabhakar Rao,
learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. This intra court appeal takes exception to the order
dated 12.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.27652 of 2023.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant previously filed W.P.No.16812 of 2021 before this
Court which was disposed of by order dated 28.07.2022
directing respondent No.2 therein to consider the application of
the appellant. In turn, the proceedings commenced before the
then respondent No.2 and the writ petitioner/respondent No.5
herein was put to notice. He submits that parargraph No.4 of
the impugned order shows that the objection of the writ
petitioner/respondent No. 5 herein has not been considered and
whole impugned proceedings dated 09.01.2023 are founded
upon two reports dated 15.12.2022 and 04.01.2023. It is fairly
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that to that
extent flaw was found and interference can very well be made in
the said proceedings dated 09.01.2023 but cancelling the
proceedings in PPB Court Cases/8919/2022 dated 09.01.2023
is bad in law. Thus, the learned Single Judge was not justified
in setting aside the proceedings dated 09.01.2023.
5. In other words, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant has no objection if the matter is
remitted by setting aside the aforesaid proceedings dated
09.01.2023 but the pattadar pass books issued in his favour
may be saved.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent No.5
submits that the impugned order passed by learned Single
Judge is correct and matter may be remitted to respondent No.2
to consider the objection of the writ petitioner.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent
Nos.1 to 4, submits that it is an inter se dispute between the
private parties.
8. Learned Single Judge has given following findings in the
impugned order:
"4. A careful examination of the proceedings,
dated 09.01.2023 issued by respondent No.2
reveals that except relying upon the reports, dated
15.12.2022 and 04.01.2023 submitted by the
Tahsilar, Nallabelly Mandal, respondent No.2 has
not considered the objections, dated 07.12.2022
raised by the petitioner, which action on the part
of respondent No.2 amounts to non-application of
mind and the same is in violation of the principles
of natural justice.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for
made efforts to enlarge the scope of the impugned
order passed by respondent No.2.
6. It is settled law that the respondents are not
having any power to enlarge the scope of the
impugned order, unless the impugned orders
demonstrate how they have applied their mind as
quasi judicial authority and therefore, the
proceedings vide Proc.No.E2/Issue of PPB Court
Cases/8919/2022, dated 09.01.2023 issued by
respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside and
accordingly, set aside. The respondents are
directed to conduct fresh enquiry after issuing
notices to all the interested parties and pass a
reasoned order in accordance with law and
communicate the decision thereon to the
petitioner, within a period of three (3) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
9. The principal reason for interference in the matter is that
the objection filed by the writ petitioner has not been considered
and the impugned order was passed solely on the basis of two
aforesaid reports dated 15.12.2022 and 04.01.2023. In that case,
in our view, the proper course would have been to set aside the
impugned aforesaid proceedings dated 09.01.2023 and restore the
matter at the same stage before the same authority/respondent
No.2 to rehear the parties, consider the respective
stands/objections taken by them and pass a fresh order in
accordance with law.
10. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the
appellant that aforesaid proceedings in PPB Court
Cases/8919/2022 dated 09.01.2023 is to be saved, in our view,
this will depend on the outcome of further proceedings to be
undertaken by respondent No.2 on remand. Thus, the
impugned aforesaid proceedings dated 09.01.2023 before the
Writ Court are set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent
No.2 to rehear the parties and pass a fresh order in accordance
with law after providing opportunity to the parties. The parties
shall appear before the said authority on 05.02.2025 and for
this, no separate notice will be required to be issued to the
parties.
11. The impugned order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge stands modified to the extent indicated
above.
12. The Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
_______________________
Dr. G. RADHARANI, J
Date: 24.01.2025
Myk/Tsr
