Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 263 (TS)

Nemarugommula Jaiveer Rao v. State of Telangana

2021-08-05

P.NAVEEN RAO

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri L. Preetham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for 5th respondent-caveator and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking the following relief: “.........to issue writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari call for the records set aside the order dated 10/06/2021 made in D2/1036/2020 Old Revenue Court RDO Suryapet being violative of principles of natural justice arbitrary unjust illegal without jurisdiction and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent authorities to continue the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records in respect of Ac. 2.29 gts of Sy No. 448/A corresponding to old Sy No. 448 of Thonda Village Thirmalgiri Mandal Suryapet District by allowing this writ petition and pass.....” 3. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Special Tribunal dated 10.6.2021. This is second round of litigation on the decision of the Special Tribunal. Against the order of Special Tribunal dated 3.2.2021, W.P. No. 8677 of 2021 was filed and this Court by order dated 8.4.2021 disposed of the same directing the respondents to follow the directions issued by Division Bench in W.P. (PIL) No. 20 of 2021 and liberty was granted to petitioner to make application for rehearing of the matter. Pursuant to the same, the Special Tribunal passed the order impugned in this writ petition. 4. Though, learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel representing respondent No. 5/caveator made elaborate submissions, looking at the manner in which the decision was made by the Special Tribunal, Court is convinced that the order is not sustainable in law on procedural fairness and no opinion is expressed on merits. 5. The Special Tribunal is required to decide the matters concerning entries in the revenue records, issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds against which an appeal and/or revision was preferred under Act 26 of 1971 and such appeals/revisions were pending on the date of notification of Act 9 of 2020. Though, it is vested with limited jurisdiction, its decision on inter-se dispute with reference to entries in the revenue records/issuing pattedar pass books and title deeds will have far reaching consequences on the entitlement of person to enjoy the land in issue and also to avail various benefits extended by the State Government to agricultural sector. 6. Though, it is vested with limited jurisdiction, its decision on inter-se dispute with reference to entries in the revenue records/issuing pattedar pass books and title deeds will have far reaching consequences on the entitlement of person to enjoy the land in issue and also to avail various benefits extended by the State Government to agricultural sector. 6. It being a quasi judicial tribunal, deciding inter-se dispute on agricultural land, it requires to follow due procedure before deciding the issue. Due procedure to decide an inter-se dispute, per force, means affording of opportunity of hearing, objective consideration of submissions made by the rival parties, coming to a conclusion on due assessment of the material placed on record and assigning reasons in support of the decision. 7. Guided by these basic parameters on adjudication of a dispute by a quasi judicial body, looking at the order impugned, it is seen that the tribunal only records that first respondent was found to be in physical possession and enjoyment of the land since long time and after due enquiry as laid down in law, the Tahsildar mutated and regularized the name of respondent No. 1 by proceedings dated 16.6.2020 and then proceeds to hold that there is no need to interfere with the order. Elaborate written submissions were made by the petitioner. There is no discussion on the submissions made by the petitioner and no reasons are assigned as to why said submissions are not tenable. Thus, the order impugned does not meet the basic parameters of a decision by the quasi judicial authority. Accordingly, the same is set aside and matter is remanded to the Special Tribunal. 8. It is hoped and expected that the Special Tribunal will follow due procedure, fix a date of hearing in advance, inform the parties the date of hearing and pass a reasoned order, on due consideration of respective submissions, uninfluenced by earlier two rounds of decisions. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, writ petition lis disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.