AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Bhukya Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for Endowments Department, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Srinivasa Murthy Cheedella, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.
Though respondent No.4-Temple is represented, no one appears on its behalf today.
The learned writ Court by the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.16734 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 writ petitioner has set aside the proceedings dated 06.09.2016, whereby mutation orders were passed in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of the subject property, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, while remanding the matter to the competent authority to pass appropriate orders after notice to the appellant, respondent No.4 and any other interested parties, purportedly under Section 5(3) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, 'ROR Act').
On the part of the appellant-Endowments Department, it is contended that the subject property is under litigation before the Endowments Tribunal, wherein the writ petitioner is also a party. Therefore, the mutation proceedings could not have been carried out in respect of the endowments property.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 writ petitioner submits that the subject property is not an agricultural land, but rather declared as an industrial zone, as per the Gazette Notification dated 28.03.2000. Therefore, the mutation could not have been allowed in favour of respondent No.4-Temple. Moreover, the order of the learned Lokayukta, which was the basis for passing the mutation order, has been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.03.2021 in W.P.No.4449 of 2017. Therefore, the proceedings dated 06.09.2016 ought to have been set aside by the learned writ Court straightaway without remanding the matter.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, though the impugned order dated 30.12.2025, insofar as setting aside the proceedings dated 06.09.2016 issued by respondent No.3-Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, in respect of the subject property, does not require interference in view of the facts and circumstances recorded herein above, we are of the view that there is no reason to remand the matter to the competent authority to pass appropriate orders under the provisions of the ROR Act.
The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed in part in the manner indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.