High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 QPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Petition, the High Court may be pleased ta suspend the Letter No.5025 / RRAct INGKL 12024 - 1, dt.04.12.2Q24 addressqd by the Besppndent No 3 to the District Collector, Khammam for recovery under the proyisiao qf Rgvenue Recovery Act, 1864 aS an arrears of Land Revenue un{er Rulq!9 of Telangana Minpr Mineral Concession Rules 1966, pending disBosEl of lhg Writ Petition in the interest of Justiee Counse! for the Petitioner: SRl. GOURIDEVI KRI$HNAIAH Counsef for the Reqpondents: GP FQR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Cqurt {nade the following: ORDER -7 (: THtr HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE T. VINOD KUMAR WRTT PETITION No.4582 of 2025 ORDER: ' Heard learned counsel for petitioner and leamed Government Pleader lor Mines and Geology appcaring on behalf of respondents, and perused the record. With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, thc Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage. Z. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner in brief is that he has been issued with demand notice dated 08-ll-2024: that against thc alirresaid demand notice while petitioner was intending to avail thc remedy of Revision provided under Rule 35-A of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules'), the respondent authorities have initiated action to recover the arnounts demanded under the demand notice by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short 'the Act') by issuing notice dated 04-12-2024; and that the aforesaid initiation ofsteps to recover the amount claimed under the demand notice even before expiry of F I I I 2 time limit of 90 days provided under the Rules lor availing the remedy of Revision, is highly illegal and arbitrarl., and also contrary to the claim of the Act and Rules.

3. Petitioner further contends that if thc respondent authorities are allowed to initiate action to recover the amounts by invoking the provisions of the Act, the right of the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal/Revision under the Rules would become redundant and otiose.

4. Petitioner further contends that since the Rules itsell. provide for 90 days tirne for preferring Revision, it had filed Re,, ision on 05-02-2025, and pending considerarion of the aforesaid Revision, the authorities be restrained from taking further proceedings under the Act initiated by them and the respondents be directed to dispose of the Revision in a time bound manner.

5. Per contro,leamed Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents while not disputing the claim ol the petitioner of lraving subrnitted a Revision on 05-02-2025, well within the period of 90 days from the date of demand notice, would submit that if --_-v J this Court were to direct the respondents to dispose of the Revision filed by the petitioner as per Rule 35-A olthe Rules, the authorities would dispose of the same within the time as nray be directed by this Cou11.

6. I have taken note ofrespective contentions urged.

7. A perusal of Rule 35-A of the Rules would show that the Govemment may either suo motu at any time or on an application made within 90 days, call for and examine thc record relating to any order passed or proceeding taken by the Director or Joint Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director of the Mines and Geology to satisff themselves of the legality or propriety of such order.

8. Admittedly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner having made an applications seeking Revision of the demand notice issued by the respondents on 08-l | -2024, which is well within the period of 90 days, the respondent authorities could not have initiated action lor recoverv of the I I I I l I 4 aforesaid anrount under the Act even before expiry of tlie aforesaid time of 90 davs provided under Rule 35-A olthe Rules

9. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner having rnade an application seeking revision of the impugned proceeding by examining as to its legality and propriety, if the respondent authorities are allowed to proceed with recovery ol the afbresaid amount by initiating action under the Act, the same would only make the entire process of the petitioner seeking reVlslon by approachir-rg the Government wound render the aforesaid process a rnere formality, and redundant, even before the Gov'ernment had considered the Revision application.

10. In the t'acts of the case, as the petitioner claims to have filed a Revision on 05-02-2025, this Court is of the view that while the respondent authorities are to be directed to dispose of the Revision filed before it in a time bound manner, the respondent authorities in particular, the 3'd respondent, who had initiated action by issuing proceedings dated 14-12-2024 proposing to initiate action under the Revenue Recovery Act, is to be restrained from taking further action tfrr?tn. -7 5 1 l. Accordingly, while restraining the 3'd respondent from taking any further action in furtherance of the proceedings dated 04-12-2024, the l't respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the Revision petition within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of' No costs

13. Miscellaneous petitions, ilany, pending shall stand closed' \ To, SD/.P, CH. N ASSIS AG ABHUSHAMBA T REGISTRAR T //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER 1 r he P ri n ci pa I se creta ry- c u m - Revilin n AYth glilv^q[r?sm*t ' iril"r.tri!" 5nd Comme'ce (Mines-l) Department t'o' , Hi:B*:f[? l'tlll xit :ll* "'fu l'$ifi?#; L"'] 7l'i"18' " "urililnJJ "" "' o' n n' 2 n d rI oo r i**tl$ntffie-,,l,m$rt'r'*:re#ffiJi::::; " i;;il;;;;tTiYderabad [ourl 7. Two QD Copies (A- B TVI BS HIGH COURT DATED:1710212025 ORDER WP.No.4582 of 2025 { gE Sr{IE e ) .) 2 4 t'1AB 2m5 I z \-,:r,/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION ?l- 1 $ \ "r{