M/S Prime Properties A Partnership Firm vs Pilli Mallaiah, And 10 Others

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22032 of 2019 dt.24-01-2020.

Heard Sri Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Avinash Desai, counsel for the appellant, Sri C.S.Vaidyanathan, learned

Senior Counsel, representing Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahamood, Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue

appearing for the respondent Nos.7 to 10.

It has been contended by the appellant that the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow W.P.No.22032 of 2019 and was pleased to declare the

action of the 5th respondent in not issuing Regularization Certificate under Section 5-A (4) of the Telangana Right of Records and Pattadar Passbook

Act, 1971 to the Writ Petitioners pursuance to the regularization proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer vide proceedings dt.09-06-1995

as arbitrary and illegal and was pleased to grant consequential direction to the 5th respondent to issue Regularization Certificate to the petitioner within

a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in respect of land admeasuring Ac.74.30 gts. in Sy. No.1007 of Kukatpally

village and Mandal, Medchel-Malkajgiri District and also update manual records electronically.

The appellant had contended that the appellant was not made party in the said Writ Petition and the appellant had interest in the said lands wherein

the learned Single Judge has directed the 5th respondent to grant Regularization Certificate in favour of the Writ Petitioners. Learned counsel for the

appellant had further contended that the learned Single Judge has referred the case of the appellant in para-9 of the order which reads as follows:

“It is also contended that an application for passing of final decree was filed and an Advocate-Commissioner was also appointed to

demarcate the respective shares; that M/s. Prime Properties claiming 346 acres filed a claim petition which was dismissed and was also

confirmed by the High Court and later in the Supreme Court; that the claim of the said entity was also rejected by the High Court in a

Review Application in C.R.P.No.6697 of 2004 on 23.02.2018, that this was challenged in the Supreme Court and on 01.10.2018, the

Supreme Court directed maintenance of status quo with regard to possession.â€​

and the learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that learned Single Judge has also referred to the appellant in paras-12 and 21 which

read as follows:

“12. The counsel for petitioners also relied upon order dt.04.06.2019 in W.P.No.22896 of 2018 and batch wherein certain documents

executed by M/s. Prime Properties, Hyderabad in respect of lands in Survey No.1007 of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Malkajgiri

Medchal District were not permitted by this Court and a finding was recorded therein that the land in Survey No.1007 of Kukatpally Village

continued to be agricultural land and did not cease to be agricultural land.

It is then contended that M/s. Prime Properties was claiming title to Hashim Ali, who had succeeded allegedly against Mir Fazeellath

Hussain in O.S.No.122 of 1973 on 22.11.1973 before the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and there was a

compromise between them. Again, no documents were filed by the respondents to prove this contention.â€​

Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have insisted that the Writ Petitioners must implead the

appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition preferred by the

unofficial respondents without hearing the appellant who had interest in the said property which is situated in Sy. No.1007 of Kukatpally village and

Mandal, Medchel-Malkajgiri District. Therefore, orders passed by the learned Single Judge is adversely effecting the rights of the appellant.

Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders of the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22032 of 2019 dt.24-01-2020 and let the matter be remanded back to the learned Single Judge and let the learned

Single Judge hear the appellant also in the Writ Petition filed by the unofficial respondents and after giving opportunity to the appellants, let the learned

Single Judge decide the case in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 had contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed orders in favour of the contesting

respondents by allowing the Writ Petition and the subject land of Ac.74.30 gts. in Sy. No.1007 of Kukatpally village and Mandal, Medchel-Malkajgiri

District is not being claimed by the appellant and the appellant has no interest and claim in respect of the said land. Therefore, there are no merits in

the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has referred to the

appellant’s case in paras 9, 12 and 21 of the judgment and gave a finding in para-21 of the judgment that no documents were filed by the

respondents to prove their contention. When appellant is not made party, the question of filing documents on behalf of appellant would not arise.

Without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met, if the order of the learned Single

Judge passed in W.P.No.22032 of 2019 dt.24-01-2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge as the said orders were

passed without impleading the appellant who have interest and claim in respect of property in the subject land and accordingly the matter is remanded

back to the learned Single Judge in the interest of justice and the learned Single Judge is directed to adjudicate the matter after giving opportunity to

the appellant as well as contesting respondents and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Since the dispute between the parities is of very

old dispute, the learned Single Judge is requested to hear the main Writ Petition itself and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible,

preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With these observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.