Telangana High Court
Sri P.Jaya Prakash vs The State Of Telangana on 6 January, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
WRIT APPEAL No.1412 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for
Sri K.S.Suneel, learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. The challenge is mounted in this appeal to the order passed
in W.P.No.13116 of 2023, whereby, the Writ Petition filed by the
petitioner was dismissed. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has
prayed for following relief:-
"For all the above reasons the petitioner prays that this
Hon'ble Court may please to issues a writ or order or a
direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the order dated 26.04.2023 issued by
the 2nd Respondent refusing to De-Notify the Land in
Sy.No.503 to an extent of Ac-5.00 gts situated at Pudur
Village Medchal Mandal MedchalMalkajgiri District from the
Prohibited List U/s 22-A and not issuing N.O.C on the pretext
that the original assignment file is not available in their office
and refusing to receive the Sale Deed dated 09.01.2023
presented manually for Registration before the 4th
Respondent/ Tahsildar as highly illegal arbitrary capricious
violative of the Fundamental rights and consequently direct
the Respondents to De-notify the land from the Prohibited list
U/s.22A and to issue N.O.C and pass such other Order or
Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
(emphasis supplied)
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per his
case, by Patta Certificate, the land was allotted to his father on
28.06.1998, who was an Ex-Serviceman. After the demise of his
father, since more than ten years period elapsed, the appellant
filed an application seeking de-notification of the land from the
Prohibitory List, because, as per Law, there is a prohibition to sell
the said land for a period of ten years from the date of allotment.
The appellant's representation/application was rejected by
impugned order dated 26.04.2023. The principal reason assigned
was that the original assignment file is not available and therefore,
the appellant's prayer was declined by the Additional Collector,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The appellant filed aforesaid writ
petition.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the
duty to keep the revenue file safely is on the shoulder of the
authorities. If they have not maintained the file, the only relief the
appellant could have prayed is to examine the aspect of allotment
and grant order of de-notification, so that, the appellant can sell
the said land.
6. The learned Single Judge has mainly given three findings.
Firstly, he opined that if the appellant's case is to be accepted, the
exact extent of land claimed by him under allotment Patta must
be available. In absence of same, the contention of the appellant
that his father was assigned land under Ex-Servicemen quota
cannot be countenanced. Learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant submits that it was nobody's case before the learned
Single Judge that Patta Certificate (page No.32) was not a genuine
document. In other words, the respondents did not take this
stand in their counter that land itself was not allotted to the
appellant's father. Thus, there was no occasion for the learned
Single Judge to give such an observation. Furthermore, it is
submitted that in paragraph No.9 of the impugned order, the
learned Single Judge opined that Writ Petition is not maintainable,
because, the appellant is seeking correction of entries in the
revenue records after nearly two decades. By taking this Court to
the prayer clause of Writ Affidavit, it is submitted that it was not
the prayer of the appellant, instead, the prayer was that the said
impugned order be set aside and appellant's land be removed from
the Prohibitory List under Section 22 (A) by issuing N.O.C. If the
petition was not maintainable, there was no occasion for the
learned Single Judge for giving any findings on merits. Lastly, it is
submitted that petition is dismissed by holding that at this
juncture, no order directing correction of revenue entries can be
issued. It is submitted that all the aforesaid reasons are incorrect
and not arising out of the prayer of the petition. Thus,
interference may be made.
7. Learned Government Pleader for respondents supported the
impugned order. However, on a specific query from the Bench,
she fairly admitted that in the counter filed before the Writ Court,
it was not averred by the State that the land in question was not
at all allotted to the appellant's father. Thus, we find substance in
the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that
there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to record a
finding doubting the allotment of land to the father of the
appellant. More so, when the stand of the Government is that
original file is missing.
8. We also find substantial force in the argument of learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant that if the Writ Petition was not
maintainable, it was not proper to record any findings on merits.
The next ground is equally attractive that the prayer of writ
petitioner was not for correction of revenue entries. A plain
reading of prayer clause of writ petition shows that the writ
petitioner did not ask for any such relief directing correction of
revenue record. Thus, all the three reasons on which, basically,
the impugned order of learned Single Judge is founded upon
cannot be permitted to stand.
9. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the learned Single Judge with the request to
decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, expeditiously,
preferably, within a period of sixty days. It is made clear that this
Bench has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as
to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
_______________________________
DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
06.01.2025
nvl/sa
