2023 Supreme(Telangana) 612

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
G.Shahikala Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
Joint Collector, R.R.District and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.12338 of 2005
Decided On : 18-07-2023

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 30 years.

Headnote:

ROR ACT - SECTION 9 - REVISION - DELAY - JURISDICTION - BHOODAN LANDS - TRANSFERABILITY - VALIDATION - LIMITATION - REASONABLE TIME - FINALITY OF ORDERS - MUTATION - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - JURISDICTION - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY - WRIT PETITION - ALLOWED: 1. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay of 16 years. 2. The order passed by the revisional authority is vitiated for non-application of mind and failure to notice admitted facts. 3. The revisional authority cannot deal with the provisions of a different statute, such as the Bhoodan and Gramdhan Act, which is outside the scope of enquiry under Section 9 of the ROR Act. 4. The settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than 30 years. 5. A belated appeal filed after 16 years cannot be entertained by the appellate authority under the ROR Act. 6. The appellate authority cannot reverse the findings of the recording authorities passed under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act. 7. The mutation granted by the revenue authorities under the ROR Act attains finality after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing an appeal. 8. A writ petition challenging the impugned order of the revisional authority is allowed, and the impugned order is quashed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner purchased land from respondents 3 and 4 through registered sale deeds in 1988. The vendors had purchased the land from the father of respondent 2, who was also a party to the sale deed. The petitioner applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records and the same was sanctioned in 1989. Respondent 2 filed an appeal against the mutation order, which was dismissed by the appellate authority. Respondent 2 then filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent, who allowed the revision and set aside the mutation order. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the impugned order of the revisional authority was illegal and without jurisdiction. The court found that the revisional authority had exercised its jurisdiction after a long delay of 16 years, without any cogent explanation for the delay. The court also found that the revisional authority had failed to apply its mind to the facts of the case and had failed to notice admitted facts. Further, the court held that the revisional authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by dealing with the provisions of the Bhoodan and Gramdhan Act, which was outside the scope of enquiry under Section 9 of the ROR Act. The court also held that the settled rights of the petitioner under the ROR Act could not be unsettled after a lapse of more than 30 years. The court further held that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the belated appeal filed by respondent 2. The court also held that the appellate authority could not reverse the findings of the recording authorities passed under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act. Finally, the court held that the mutation granted by the revenue authorities under the ROR Act had attained finality after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing an appeal.

Issues: 1. Whether the revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act can be exercised after a long delay of 16 years? 2. Whether the order passed by the revisional authority is vitiated for non-application of mind and failure to notice admitted facts? 3. Whether the revisional authority can deal with the provisions of a different statute, such as the Bhoodan and Gramdhan Act, which is outside the scope of enquiry under Section 9 of the ROR Act? 4. Whether the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act can be unsettled after a lapse of more than 30 years? 5. Whether a belated appeal filed after 16 years can be entertained by the appellate authority under the ROR Act? 6. Whether the appellate authority can reverse the findings of the recording authorities passed under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act? 7. Whether the mutation granted by the revenue authorities under the ROR Act attains finality after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing an appeal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay of 16 years, without any cogent explanation for the delay. 2. The order passed by the revisional authority is vitiated for non-application of mind and failure to notice admitted facts. 3. The revisional authority cannot deal with the provisions of a different statute, such as the Bhoodan and Gramdhan Act, which is outside the scope of enquiry under Section 9 of the ROR Act. 4. The settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than 30 years. 5. A belated appeal filed after 16 years cannot be entertained by the appellate authority under the ROR Act. 6. The appellate authority cannot reverse the findings of the recording authorities passed under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act. 7. The mutation granted by the revenue authorities under the ROR Act attains finality after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing an appeal.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order of the revisional authority was quashed.