IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Liyaqatullah Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 31336 of 2017
Decided On : 29-02-2024
(A) Andhra Pradesh Rights In Land And Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Violation of principles of natural justice - Impugned order for mutation of name without notice to the petitioner is illegal and unconstitutional - The court emphasized that no order adverse to a party should be passed without hearing them. (Paras 8, 11, 12)
(B) Jurisdiction - Respondent No.3 lacked authority to direct respondent No.4 to implement the judgment without notice to the petitioner - The trial court's decree was set aside by the lower appellate court, making the impugned order void. (Paras 3.3, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, claiming ownership of land, challenged the mutation of name in revenue records in favor of his brother, which was done without notice.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside due to violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issues were the authority of respondent No.3 to issue directions and the violation of the petitioner's right to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the impugned order was void as it was passed without notice and opportunity to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice.
Result: Writ petition allowed, impugned order set aside.
ORDER :
(J. Sreenivas Rao, J.)
1. This writ petition is filed for seeking following relief:
2. Heard Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 to 4 and Sri Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig for respondent No.5.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Acs.4.24 guntas in Survey No.407 situated at Kankurti Village, Damargidda Mandal, Mahboobnagar District and his name was mutated in the Revenue Records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in his favour. He further submit that originally Marepaly Hanmappa was protected tenant and his legal heirs surrendered protected tenancy rights and delivered possession of the subject property to the petitioner on 28.07.1995. Questioning the revenue entries made in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.5, who is non- other than his elder brother, filed ROR Appeal vide case No.A/490/2006, before respondent No.3.
3.1. He further submits that respondent No.5 also filed a suit O.S.No.41 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, seeking to declare him as absolute owner of the subject land and recovery of possession and also recording his name as pattadar in ROR records by deleting the name of the petitioner herein. The said suit was decreed in part by its judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017, to the extent of declaration and recovery of possession, in so far as the other relief is concerned, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal A.S.No.7 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, along with the said appeal he filed application, I.A.No.237 of 2017 to grant stay of execution of the decree dated 14.07.2017 passed by the Trial Court and the said application was dismissed by its order dated 30.08.2017. Questioning the same, petitioner filed C.R.P.No.4462 of 2017 and this Court initially granted stay on 01.09.2017 till 15.09.2017 and thereafter the same was allowed by its order dated 09.11.2017. Subsequently, lower appellate Court allowed the appeal A.S.No.7 of 2017 by its judgment and Decree dated 15.07.2021. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 filed Second Appeal No.7 of 2022 before this Court wherein this Court was pleased to order Notice Before Admission and both the parties are directed to maintain Status-Quo.
3.2. While things stood thus, respondent No.3 issued directions to respondent No.4 through letter dated 03.08.2017 to implement judgment and decree passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal in O.S.No.41 of 2006, dated 14.07.2017 to carryout the corrections in revenue records. Basing on the said instructions, respondent No.4 issued the impugned proceedings No.C/2943/2015, dated 11.08.2017 for mutation of name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records in respect of subject property in place of the petitioner, even without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioner.
3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.3 is not having any authority or jurisdiction to issue any direction for implementation of the judgment and decree passed by Junior Civil Judge, dated 14.07.2017, even without issuing any notice and opportunit
Allwyn Housing Colony Welfare Association vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others
S. Panduranga Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others
Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others
Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others
Entala Bhupal and another Vs. District Revenue Officer, Warangal and Others
The court ruled that orders affecting rights must not be made without providing notice and opportunity to the affected party, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
Point of law: The demand for justice is not a matter of form but a matter of substance, and it is necessary that a “proper and sufficient demand has to be made”. The demand must be made to the proper....
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....
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 scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.
The court upheld the principle of natural justice, ruling that revenue entries made without notice to affected parties are invalid.
Revenue authorities must issue individual notices before altering land records to uphold natural justice, as failure to do so renders the action arbitrary and illegal.
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.