Point of Law : Delay in filing revision - opportunity of hearing is an empty formality. Petitioner cannot improve his case to invalidate the decision of the Special Tribunal even if an opportunity is afforded to him by the Special Tribunal.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:

“…..to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order dated 01.02.2021 in Old Case No.F3/1325/2019, without conducting trial and without issuing prior notice and opportunity to prove the case of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to conduct trial in Old Case No.F3/1325/2019 and pass such other orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4.

3. This writ petition is filed challenging the decision of the Special Tribunal dated 01.02.2021. The Special Tribunal dismissed the revision filed under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) on the ground of inordinate delay.

4. The primary challenge to the decision of the Special Tribunal is on the ground that Special Tribunal passed orders without notice and opportunity of hearing.

5. The disposal of the cases by the Special Tribunals in this manner was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL).No.20 of 2021. By order, dated 18.03.2021, the learned Division Bench directed as under :

“4. It is therefore deemed appropriate to direct that in all cases that have been transferred from the revenue courts to the Special Tribunals notwithstanding any orders that may have been passed by the Special Tribunals, the respondents shall issue public notices calling upon parties to appear before the Special Tribunals in each district on a fixed date and time to enable them to make their submissions. Wherever a request for a personal hearing is received from parties, the orders passed by the Special Tribunals shall be deemed to be quashed and set aside. Fresh orders shall be passed by the Special Tribunals after granting a reasonable opportunity to the parties of being heard either in person or through their advocates. They shall also be afforded a chance to file written submissions, if not already filed. Only thereafter shall fresh orders be passed by the Special Tribunals. Adequate and wide spread publicity of this order shall be given by the State within three weeks to apprise all concerned parties of the same.”

6. Consequent to the directions issued by the Division Bench, the State Government issued general notification in Namasthe Telangana and The Hindu daily newspapers on 09.04.2021 calling upon the parties to appear before the Special Tribunal on 15th or 16th April, 2021, to request for fresh hearing of the matters.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, there is no averment of petitioner that he appeared before the Special Tribunal on the days specified in the notification and requesting for rehearing the case.

8. However, matter does not rest there. It is appropriate to note that Special Tribunal dismissed the revision on the ground that the claim was made after fifty years. Thus, the petitioner has to state clearly that there was no delay or there is sufficient justification in not availing the remedy of revision. Fifty years in prosecuting the litigation, even if there is merit in the contentions, cannot be appreciated, having regard to the settled principle of law.

9. In Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district and another Vs. D.Narsing Rao and others, (2015) 3 SCC 695, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering inordinate delay in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act 26 of 1971. Deprecating the practice of availing revisional remedy after long lapse of time of arising of cause of action, even though Section 9 did not stipulate limitation period to avail the remedy, the Hon’ble