IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
P. Narsimha Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 10607 of 2019
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Writ Petition - Land Dispute - A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 - Sec.5(3) - The court discussed the mutation orders, the appeal filed, and the order passed by the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, and set aside the order impugned due to lack of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and violation of Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought mutation of land in revenue records, but the respondents transferred the land without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed by the Joint Collector lacked reasoning, violated Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971, and was passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues included lack of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, violation of Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971, and the locus standi of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court set aside the order impugned due to lack of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and violation of Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Special Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.
ORDER :
Heard the learned senior designate counsel, Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 and learned Senior designate counsel Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy on behalf of unofficial respondents No.5 to 12.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating case no. D1/3112/2017 dated 17.05.2019 on the file of the Respondent no.2, vide Case No. D1/3112/2017 dated 17.05.2019.
3. The Case of the petitioner in brief, is as follows:
b) The Revenue Divisional Officer confirming the same had issued the Ownership Certificate as Protected Tenants vide B/264/LRE/75 dated 15.05.1975 to the legal heirs of the above mentioned 4 (Four) persons, admeasuring Ac.11-31 gts in Sy.No 8, Ac.0.11 gts in Sy.No.9 and Ac.1.31 gts in Sy.No 10.
c) Accordingly, in pursuance to the issuance of certificate, the Revenue Authorities have accorded the sanction of mutation individually and land admeasuring Ac.2.37 gts in Sy.No.8, Ac.0.02 ¼ in Sy.No.9 and Ac.0.18 gts in Sy.No.10 was mutated in favor of the elder son of Paila Ramaiah i.e., Pailla Bal Reddy.
d) Paila Ramaiah died leaving two sons i.e., Father of the petitioner and Mr. Paila Bal Reddy, who had jpintly and eqally succeeded the above property. Both the sons during their lifetime had orally partitioned all the properties including the land admeasuring Ac.2.37 gts in Sy.No. 8, Ac.0.2 ¼ in Sy.No.9 and Ac.0.18 gts in Sy.No.10, in equal shares.
e) The said partition had been reduced to writing in the presence of Village elders on 07.12.1986 and pursuant to the said partition both the sons (including the father of the petitioner) came to the possession, enjoyment and enjoyed as the absolute owners.
f) Pursuant to the partition, the late father of the petitioner got the Land Admeasuring Ac.1.18 ½ gts out of Ac.2.37 gts in Sy.No.8, Ac.0.01 ¼ gts out of Ac.2 ¼ gts in Sy.No. 9 and Ac.0.08 ¾ out of Ac.0.18 gts in Sy.No.10, a total of land admeasuring Ac.1.28 ½ gts (would be referred to as Partitioned Property herein).
g) After the petitioner’s father deceased, the petitioner succeeded the partitioned property, and the petitioner is in possession of the partitioned property and hence the petitioner had filed an application before the 4th respondent for incorporating the petitioner’s name in the Revenue Records.
h) After proper conduction of enquiry, following due procedure, and also taking into consideration the MRI report, the, mutation had been sanctioned in favor of the petitioner vide proceedings No.B/248/2003 dated 21.06.2004.
i) Despite the pattadar Pass Book and Title deeds being in favor of the petitioner, respondent no.4 did not issue Pahanies in favor of the petitioner. Aggrieved, petitioner had filed W.P. No. 32940 of 2012 and the court vide orders dated 17.10.2022 directed the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner’s case for issuance of pahanies.
j) Taking advantage of the fact that the name of the petitioner, is not entered into pahanies, respondents no. 7 to 9 had transferred the lands in Sy.No. 8 and 10 to respondent no.10 and respondent sold the subject land to Respondents NO. 5, 6 and 11. The subject land had in turn been sold to respondent no.12 and the names of these respondents are included in the revenue records without issuing any notice to the petitioner herein.
k) Aggrieved by the action of respondent no.4 in, incorporating the names of Respondent nos. 5, 6, 11, & 12, petitioner had filed an Appeal before Respondent no.3 under section 5(5) of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattedar Pass B
The main legal point established is the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders under Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passb....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the Revenue Divisional Officer's authority to treat an application as an appeal and the requirement for parties to follow the ....
The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice and the prescribed method and procedure when exercising statutory powers.
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural requirements and the principle of natural justice in amending entries in the Record of Rights, ruling that the respondent acted without juri....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.