SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 34172

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, CJ, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Cyrus Investments Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Aditya Homes – Respondent
W.A.Nos.408, 439, 442, 542, 543, 623 and 649 of 2011



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vedula Srinivas, T.Rajendra Prasad, Raghu Gurram, Anitha Swain
For the Respondents: Avinash Desai, A.Venkatesh, M.V.Durga Prasad

Orders passed against deceased individuals without notice violate natural justice and are void, emphasizing the necessity of proper procedure in land mutation disputes.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 5(5) - Common judgment on multiple writ appeals concerning land ownership disputes - Legal heirs of the original owner contested mutation entries favoring other parties without due process - Court emphasized that orders passed against deceased parties without notice are void and violate natural justice principles. (Paras 19, 22, 24)

(B) Natural Justice - The requirement of issuing notice to all interested parties before altering records is fundamental; failure to do so renders the order invalid. (Paras 12, 22)

Facts of the case:
The dispute involved land ownership claims over a parcel of land sold in 1964, with conflicting entries in revenue records concerning the legal heirs of Bahadurunnisa Begum and Suraj Bhan, leading to multiple appeals.

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge set aside prior orders for lack of notice to affected parties, confirming that the appeals were improperly adjudicated against deceased individuals.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of mutation orders made without proper notice and the jurisdiction of revenue authorities to adjudicate ownership disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that orders passed without proper notice to all interested parties and against deceased individuals are null and void, reiterating the necessity of following due process in administrative actions.

Result: Writ appeals dismissed.

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)

Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N.M.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for appellants in W.A.Nos.408, 439 and 442 of 2011.

Mr. T.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.623 and 649 of 2011.

Mr. Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for appellants Nos.2, 4 and 5 in W.A.No.542 of 2011.

Ms. Anitha Swain, learned counsel for appellant Nos.6 to 11 in W.A.No.543 of 2011.

Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. C.Apoorva Reddy, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.439 and 543 of

2011.

Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. C.Apoorva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.649 of 2011.

Mr. M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 to 20 in W.A.No.408 of 2011.

2. Aggrieved by the common order of the learned Single Judge in the W.P.Nos.24525, 24506 of 2008 (allowed) and 28272 of 2008 (dismissed), the following seven (7) Writ Appeals have been filed:

I. Three writ appeals filed:

W.A.No.439 of 2011 - Filed by Cyrus Investments

W.A.No.543 of 2011 - Filed by Mohd.Qamuruddin Khan and Others

W.A.No.649 of 2011 - Filed by Anup Kumar Roy and Mohd. Mustafa Ali

Against

W.P. No. 24506 of 2008: Aditya Homes - Petitioner

Mohd. Qamuruddin Khan and 4 Others - Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 Nawab Mohd. Naseeruddin Khan - Respondent No. 9 Anup Kumar Ray and Mohd. Mustafa Ali - Respondent Nos. 10 and 11

II. Three writ appeals filed:

W.A. No. 442 of 2011 - Filed by Cyrus Investments

W.A. No. 542 of 2011 - Filed by Mohd. Qamuruddin Khan and Others

W.A. No. 623 of 2011 - Filed by Anup Kumar Roy and Mohd. Mustafa Ali

Against

W.P. No. 24525 of 2008:

Ganesh Pershad and 11 Others (Suraj Bhan Family) - Petitioners

Mohd. Qamuruddin Khan and 4 Others - Respondent Nos. 4 to 8

Nawab Mohd. Naseeruddin Khan - Respondent No. 9

Anup Kumar Ray and Mohd. Mustafa Ali - Respondent Nos.10-11.

III. One writ appeal filed:

W.A. No. 408 of 2011 - Filed by Cyrus Investments Ltd.

Against

W.P. No. 28272 of 2008:

Cyrus Investments Ltd. - Petitioner

Mohd. Qamuruddin Khan and 4 Others - Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 Ganesh Pershad and 11 Others (Suraj Bhan Family) - Respondent Nos. 9 to 20

Nawab Mohd. Naseeruddin Khan - Respondent No.21

Since the issue involved is common in all the Writ Appeals, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For brevity, facts and parties as arrayed in W.A.No.408 of 2011 are referred to.

Brief facts:

The subject matter pertains to parcel of land admeasuring Ac.7.05 guntas in Sy.No.1, situated at Darga Hussain Shavali Village, Serilingampally Village. As per the appellant in W.A.No.408 of 2011, one Bahadurunnisa Begum was the owner of subject land and sold the subject property to H.E.H. Nizam under registered sale deed dated 26.04.1964. M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited purchased the subject property from H.E.H. Nizam. Thereafter, name of M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited entered in the revenue records.

3.1 Legal heirs of Bahadrunnisa Begum, namely respondent Nos.4 to 8 filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act , 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act, 1971’) before Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional officer (for Short ‘RDO’), Chevella Division, i.e., respondent No.2 herein, on the ground that, Mandal Revenue Officer (for short ‘MRO’), Serlingampally, i.e., respondent No.3 herein, sanctioned mutation of subject property in the names of Ganesh Pershad, Jagadish Pershad and Mahavir Pershad, legal heirs of one Suraj Bhan. However, their names are required to be deleted and names of respondent Nos.4 to 8 have to be entered in the revenue records. It is the case of legal heirs of Smt. Bahadrunnissa Begum that her name was deleted and names of legal heirs of late Suraj Bhan i.e., Ganesh Pershad, Jagadish Pershad and Mahavir Pershad, were inserted without notice. RDO in the appeal by order, dated 22.05.2007, directed deletion of names of Ganes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top