AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. L. Ravinder, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. L.Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mayur Mundra, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
With the consent of the parties, the writ appeals are heard finally.
These appeals have been preferred by the appellant in which the validity of the order dated 28.10.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.40394 of 2015 and 934 of 2016 has been assailed.
Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the respondent No.5, who is the writ petitioner, entered into two registered Agreements of Sale – cum – General Power of Attorneys executed by the appellant, who is the respondent No.5 in the writ petitions, and its sister concern companies under registered documents dated 04.06.2007 in respect of the land situated in various survey numbers of Koheda Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The writ petitioner claims to be in possession on the basis of the aforesaid registered documents dated 04.06.2007. The writ petitioner thereupon approached the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar seeking amendment in the revenue records to incorporate its name in the possessor column. The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar by a memo dated 19.04.2010 directed to incorporate the name of the writ petitioner in the possessor column. However, the Joint Collector took up suo motu revision against the memo dated 19.04.2010 under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”), and by an order dated 01.08.2015, allowed the revision. It was inter alia held that the memo dated 19.04.2010 suffers from procedural irregularity inasmuch as the procedure prescribed was not followed. The writ petitioner thereupon submitted representations on 15.10.2015 and 28.10.2015 before the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar requesting for necessary amendments in the revenue records. The appellant thereupon approached the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar seeking restoration of its name in the revenue records in respect of the subject land in the light of the order dated 01.08.2015 passed by the Joint Collector. The writ petitioner was put on notice. Thereafter, W.P.No.40394 of 2015 was filed complaining non-consideration of the representations dated 15.10.2015 and 28.10.2015. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, by an order dated 28.12.2015, directed restoration of the name of the appellant in the revenue records on the ground that the memo dated 19.04.2010 was set aside by the Joint Collector and the order dated 01.08.2015 had become final. The writ petitioner thereupon filed another writ petition, namely W.P.No.934 of 2016. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 28.10.2022 by which the writ petitioner was granted the liberty to submit a fresh representation within a period of two weeks before the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, who was directed to forward the same together with representations dated 15.10.2015 and 28.10.2015 to the District Collector. The District Collector was directed to decide the said representations. In the aforesaid factual background, these writ appeals have been filed.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the order dated 01.08.2015 passed by the Joint Collector has attained finality. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the provisions of the Act were repealed by the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020, and therefore, the District Collector had no authority to decide the representations submitted by the writ petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5 has submitted that all the objections can be raised by the appellant before the District Collector.
We have considered the submissions made on both sides.
The learned Single Judge by an order dated 28.10.2022 has directed the District Collector to decide the representations. The appellant has also been granted the opportunity of hearing before deciding the representations. It is, therefore, directed that the appellant shall be at liberty to raise all the contentions as are permissible in law in the proceedings before the District Collector. The District Collector shall advert to the same and shall decide the representations submitted by the writ petitioner by a speaking order. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from today.
To the aforesaid extent, the common order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified.
Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.