Telangana High Court

Medi Upendramma vs Amaroji Lavanya on 4 September, 2025

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1695, 1922, 1933 and 1936 of 2025

 COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the common

order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Agent to Government,

Bhadradri Kothagudem, in E.P.Nos.234, 235, 236, and 237 of 2023

respectively, dismissing the Execution Petitions filed by the

petitioners.

2. Heard Sri Y.Pulla Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri P.V.Krishnamachary, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in C.R.P.No.1695 of

2025 are hereunder discussed.

4. The petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.123 of 2022 on the file

of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, for recovery of

an amount of Rs.7,56,000/-. The learned Agent to Government passed

an ex-parte decree on 30.06.2023. Along with the said suit, the

petitioner also filed I.A.No.112 of 2022 seeking attachment before

judgment, pursuant to which the scheduled property was attached.

Subsequent to the decree, the decree holder filed E.P.No.235 of 2022.

During the pendency of the said E.P., respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed a

claim petition i.e., E.A.No.5 of 2024, contending that they had

purchased the scheduled property from respondent No.1/ Judgment

Debtor on 01.03.2022, and they are having absolute rights over the

said property and the decree holder was not entitled to seek execution

of decree against the said property. However, without adjudicating the

claim petition, the learned Agent to Government dismissed the

Execution Petition through the impugned order dated 04.09.2024,

solely on the ground that respondent Nos.2 to 5 had already

approached the this Court by filing W.P.No.24180 of 2023,

challenging the cancellation of assessment of property tax and further

directed the parties to resolve the issues before the High Court.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present

Civil Revision Petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned

Agent to Government dismissed the Execution Petitions without

assigning any reasons. The mere pendency of the writ petition is not a

valid ground to dismiss the execution petitions. He further submitted

that, in the writ petition, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have questioned the

proceedings issued by the Gram Panchayat cancelling the assessment

of property tax in respect of the scheduled property. He further

submitted that the learned Agent to Government has not adjudicated

the claim petitions to determine whether respondent Nos.2 to 5 have

any semblance of right to defeat the decree passed in favor of the

petitioners. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Agent to

Government is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. He also

submitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are claiming rights over the

subject property in Sy.No.137/12 based on a sada sale deed dated

01.03.2022 set to have been executed by respondent No.1/judgment

debtor, though respondent No.1/judgment debtor availed a loan from

the petitioner by executing a promissory note dated 27.05.2021 prior

to execution of alleged sada sale deed dated 01.03.2022. Therefore,

the claim petitioners do not confer any right over the subject property.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submitted that the

learned Agent to Government, after considering the contentions of

both parties, rightly dismissed the Execution Petitions by giving

cogent reasons. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the

impugned order passed by the Agent to Government.

7. Having considering the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.123 of 2022 for recovery of an

amount against Respondent No.1/Judgment Debtor. In the said suit,

Respondent No.1 did not appear, and he was set ex-parte and the

learned Agent to Government passed an ex-parte decree on

30.06.2023. Thereafter, the decree-holder filed Execution Petition

vide E.P.No.235 of 2022, seeking execution of the decree. During the

pendency of the Execution Petition, respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed a

claim petition, E.A.No.5 of 2024, claiming rights over the scheduled

property on the ground that they purchased the property for valuable

consideration from respondent No.1/Judgment Debtor through sada

sale deed dated 01.03.2022. Thereafter, they filed Writ Petition vide

W.P.No.24180 of 2023, questioning the cancellation of the assessment

made by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Ramanjaneya

Colony, Chunchupalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagiudem, dated

09.05.2022.

8. It is relevant to mention here that the learned Agent to

Government while adjudicating the dispute by invoking the powers

conferred under the Provisions of Agency Rules and Civil Procedure

Code ought to have considered the contentions of the respective

parties, evidence on record and ought to have given reasons. In the

case of hand, the learned Agent to Government has not given any

reasons in support of the impugned order and the same is a clear

violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law. It is

settled principles of law that quasi-judicial authorities or judicial

authorities while passing orders reasons must be recorded.

9. It is already stated supra that the learned Agent to Government

while adjudicating the dispute by exercising powers conferred under

the provisions of Agency Rules, 1924 ought to have recorded the

reasons.

10. It is pertinent to mention that when a third party files a claim

petition in execution proceedings, by invoking the provisions of Order

21, Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has to adjudicate

the claim and determine whether the claim petitioners have any right

or interest in the subject property. In the present case, the learned

Agent to the Government dismissed the E.Ps. solely on the ground

that the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 vide

W.P.No.24180 of 2023, questioning the cancellation of the assessment

made by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Ramanjaneya

Colony, Chunchupalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagiudem is still

pending.

11. It is relevant to extract the operative portion of the common

order passed by the learned Agent to Government, dated 04.09.2024

in E.P.Nos.234, 235, 236, and 237 of 2023:

"In the light of the above findings, the Court is of the opinion that all the Exeuction Petitions have been dismissed, and the same subject property is pending at Hon'ble High Court. However, the Court can't be inclined to the subject property, and both parties have to settle their issue regarding the subject property pending at Hon'ble High Court, T.S., Hyderabad."

12. The learned Agent to Government has not given any reasons,

much less valid reasons, while dismissing the Execution Petitions. The

impugned order passed by the learned Agent to Government dated

04.09.2024 is contrary to law, as it is a cryptic order passed without

assigning any reasons. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set

aside. The learned Agent to Government is directed to pass orders

afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties, within a period of

two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.