Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Gundlapurapu Eswaramma W/o Daruga – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5418 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2023
Telangana State Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation - Section 6 - Property - Will Deed - Possession - Petitioners are owners of subject property covered under Survey Nos. 63, 64, 67/1, 67/2 situated at Singavaram Village of Dummugudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District and same was acquired through Registered Will Deed vide document No dated executed by Devulapalli Jagannadha Rao - After his death petitioners became owners of property - He further submits that respondent No. 3 initiated LTR proceedings vide Case No. A/02/2021/DGM, dated basing on complaint filed by unofficial respondents on alleged ground that petitioners have occupied Government land and requested to evict petitioners from said land - Respondent No. 3 without considering explanation of the petitioners passed ejectment orders - He further submits that against said order petitioners filed appeal CMA No. 36 of 2021 before respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 also without considering contentions raised by petitioners simply dismissed appeal and confirmed order of respondent No. 3 by its order dated - Whether impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting stay application of petitioners, pending Revision, without giving notice and opportunity, is sustainable under law? - Whether petitioners are entitled to any relief? On other hand learned Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare contended that respondent No. 1 has rightly rejected stay petition after going through records and at time of rejection of stay petition, petitioners are not entitled to any notice and opportunity.
Findings of the Court:
Respondent No. 1 is adjudicating proceedings by exercising quasi judicial powers conferred under Regulations. Respondent No. 1 while admitting Revision petition rejected stay application filed by petitioner only on ground that there are no sufficient grounds and it appears that before passing the rejection order, respondent No. 1 has neither issued notice nor given an opportunity of hearing to petitioners and rejected stay application - Respondent No. 1 passed impugned rejection order without giving any reasons much less valid reasons and it amounts to clear violation of principles of natural justice - Though learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents raised several contentions by entering into merits of case, Court is of view that respondent No. 1 has already admitted statutory Revision filed by petitioners and same is pending, if Court passes any order by entering into merits of case Revision petition filed by petitioners will become infructuous and it affects rights of petitioners under Revision - In view of foregoing reasons, impugned order vide Memo No. 95/TW/LTR/2023-1 dated passed by respondent No. 1 is set aside and matter is remitted back to respondent No. 1 on ground that the respondent No. 1 passed impugned order without giving any reasons and opportunity to the petitioners.
Result: Writ Petition is disposed of.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
Heard, Sri Kondaparthi Srinivasa, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 21.
2. With the consent of the respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are the owners of the subject property covered under Survey Nos. 63, 64, 67/1, 67/2 situated at Singavaram Village of Dummugudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District and the same was acquired through Registered Will Deed vide document No. 30/1994 dated 09.04.1994 executed by Devulapalli Jagannadha Rao. After his death the petitioners became the owners of the property.
3.1. He further submits that respondent No. 3 initiated LTR proceedings vide Case No. A/02/2021/DGM, dated 06.08.2021, basing on the complaint filed by the unofficial respondents on the alleged ground that the petitioners have occupied Government land and requested to evict the petitioners from the said land. Respondent No. 3 without considering the explanation of the petitioners passed the ejectment orders on 06.08.2021. He further submits that against the said order the petitioners filed appeal CMA No. 36 of 2021 before respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 also without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners simply dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of respondent No. 3 by its order dated 09.12.2022.
3.2. He further submits that aggrieved by the said orders the petitioners filed Revision under Section 6 of The Telangana State Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959 as amended Regulation 1 of 1970, (herein after called for Brevity ‘Regulations’) along with the Stay petition seeking stay of operation of the orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1 without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners, rejected the stay petition while admitting the Revision, by its order dated 22.02.2023 vide Memo No. 95/TW/LTR/2023-1. The impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to law.
4. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare contended that respondent No. 1 has rightly rejected the stay petition after going through the records and at the time of rejection of the stay petition, the petitioners are not entitled to any notice and opportunity.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents vehemently contended that the subject land belongs to Government and the pe
A tribunal, therefore, exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial act cannot decide against the rights of a party without giving him a hearing or an opportunity to represent his case in the manner known....
The absence of notice and opportunity to be heard before passing a resumption order constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating the order's annulment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
