M.Bhoopat Reddy v. Collector RR District. lA NO

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constilution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affiflavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ OF CERTIORARI to call for the records pertain to the Impugned orders vide Memo No. ElAppeall2o2l Dated. 2210212021 on the file of the District collector- cum- appellate authority under agency Laws as wel as the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide case No.ll402012015 Dated. 31lozt2o2o is illegat, arbitrary and u n constitutiona l, and depriving the rights of the originat Land-Lords by violating the natural justice, which effects Art.300- A and Art.14 of the lndian Constitution and liable to set.a-side the same as abuse of process of law. CONSEOUENTLY, direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to take action as per setfled law i.e,. ALT '1990-1-1 '10 Equat APLJ 1989-2-348 M.Bhoopat Reddy Vs. Collector RR District. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed by the 3rd Respondent vide Case NO. l/4020i2015 Dated. 311O712020 pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between:

1. Syed Rasheed, S/o. Khader Sahrif, Age Major, Occ. Retd. RTC Driver, R7o. Mannanoor (V), Amrabad(M), Achampet (Division) Nagar kurnool District. 2. Syed Hidalhullah, Sio. Syed Faizullah, Age Major, Occ. Bu_siness, Ri./o. ttrlannanoor (V), Amrabad(M), Achampet (Division) Nagar kurnool District. 3. Syed Khaleellula, S/o. Khader Sahrif, Age Maior, Occ. Business , R7o. Mannanoor (V),Amrabad(M), Achampet (Division) Nagar kurnool District- 4. Syed Kaleemulla, S/o. Khader Sahrif, Age Major, Occ. Retd. RTC Employee, R7o. Mannanoor (V), Amrabad(M), Achampet (Division) Nagar kurnool District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS NOS.5 to I in W.P.No.14218 ot 2O21 AND

1. Pittala Suresh, S/o. Parvathalu, Age 38 yrs Occ. Pvt Medical Practitioner/Agriculture, Fl/o Mannan Nu(V) Amrabad, Nagarkunrool District ...respondent /writ Petitioner 2. The State of Telaqgana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue) Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad.

3. The Agency Divisional Officer- Cum-District Collector, Nagar kurnool District. 4. The Agency Divisional Officer- Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Achampet. Nagar kurnool District.

5. The Tahsildhar, Amrabad (mandal) at Amrabad, Nagar kumool District. ... respondents/respondents nos.'1 to 4

6. Pittala Venkataiah, Sio. Lingaiha, (Died per Lrs i.e., Res.10 to 15) 7. Pittala Mallesh, S/o. Venkataiah. Age. 25 Years, Occ. pvt Works, 8. Pittala Bodiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age. 45 Years, Occ. Agricluture, 9. Pittala Naresh, S/o. Parvathalu, Age. 36 Years, Occ,. Pvt Works, 10. Piftala Mallamma, W/o. Lingiaha, Age.47 Years, Occ. House Wife,

11. Pitala Renaiah, S/o. Lingaiah, Age. 32 Years, Occ. Pvt Works.

12. Nenvath Siaram, S/0. Hanumanthu age.47 Years, Respondents No. 6 to r'13- are Rl/o. Mannanoor (V), Amrabad(M), Achampet Div. Nagar Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDNTS NOS.9 TO 15 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim suspension order dated 281612021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court suspending the order passed by The Agency Divisional Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Achampet No.1 14020t2O15 dated 31 _t _2020. Divsion, Nagarkurnool District in Case Counsel for the petitioner: SRI G.L.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.S to 9: SRI YADAIAH JETTI Counset forthe Respondent No.16 to 19: SRI A.KRANT| KUMAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER l I I l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.142L8 of 2o21 ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and learned. Counsel appearing for the unofhcia-l respondents and perused the material on record.

2. This writ petition is hled for calling the records pertaining to the Impugned orders uide Memo No.E/Appeal/2o21, dated 22.02.2021 on the file of the District Collector-cum-appellate authority under agency Laws as well as the orders passed by the respondent No.3 uide Case No.I/4O2O/2015, Dated 31.07.2020 is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and depriving the rights of the original Landlords by violating the natural justice which effects .) SI<,J W.P.Na.742t8 of 2O2I Articles 3OO-A and 14 of the Indian Constitution and liable to set aside the same as abuse of process of law.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that the lis in this writ petition is squarery covered by the orders in w.p.No.77o4 of 2O2l dated 29.08.2024 and. requested to pass similar orders in this writ petition.

4. l,earned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the unofficial respondents are not disputed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the orders in w.p.No.77o4 of 2O2l dated29.Oa.2O24.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstalces of the case, the orders passed by this court in the writ petition referred to above andrfor the reasons alike, the writ peUtion is disposed of in derms of orders passed in W.p.No.7 7O4 of 2O2L dated 29.08.2024. 3 sr,J W.P.No.74278 oJ 2027

6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition ts disposed of, the impugned memo dated

22.O2.2O2L in E,/AppeaU2O2l passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 i.e. The Agency Divisional Oflicer -Cum- District Collector, Nagarkurnool District, with a direction to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 2I.OL.2O2L under Telangana Agency Rules, L924 and' pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law by putting the petitioner as well as unofficial respondents herein on notice and affording them an opportunity. The said applications were filed in the year, 2021. Therefore, respondent No.2 shall endeavor to dispose of the said applications strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously as -possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months fr<,m the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 4 sx,J W.P.No.74278 oJ 2O27

7. The Registry is directed to alnex copy of Order dated

29.O8.2O24 passed in W.P.No.77O4 of 2021.

8. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. NOTE:- That the Para No.6 of the order dated 16.04.2025 in W.P.No.14218 of 2021 is deleted and substituted as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court dated 13.08.2025 in l.A.No.4 of 2025. This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 16.06.2025. I //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR s /. A.SREENIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To State of Telangana. Nagar kurnool District. Secretariat at Hyderabad, 1 . The Principal Secretary, (Revenue) Departme 2. The Agency Divisional Officer- Cum-District Collector, Nagar kurnool District. 3. The Agency Divisional Officer- Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Achampet. 4. The Tahsildhar, Amrabad (mandalk) at Amrabad, Nagar kurnool District. 5. One CC to SRI G.L.NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SRI A.KRANTI KUMAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI YADAIAH JETTI, Advocate [OPUC] B. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at (Along with the copy of order dated 29.08.2024, in W.P.No.7704 of 20211 Hyderabad [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies BSR TJ lY- Ail') & HIGH COURT DATED: 1610412025 13t08t2025 :__ .1 t AMENDED ORDER WP.No.14218 ot 2021 a- il l;1 23 IUBM lL t:)-\\ ..) : I a .,, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS THE TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE IC LAKSIIMAN WRITPETITION No.7 704 of202l ORDER: Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appeaingfor respondent Nos' 1 to 4 and Sri V'S'R M'V Prasad Sanaka' learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos 5 to l4' Z. The petitioners and eight others fited an application under Regulation 3(2XAX1) of A'P', Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation' 1959 before the respondent No'3 against respondent Nos'5 to 14 seeking eviction of respondent Nos.5 to 14 from the schedule property and restore the possession of the same to the petitioners herein' They have also sought a direction to respondent No'l herein to carry out the amendment in the RoR of the said land in the name of petitioners as pattadars and possessors by way of succession contending that they are successors of original pattadar Sri Bikkumandla Narayana' Respondent No.3 has transferred the same to respondent No'2- J SpecialTiibunal,NagarKumoolDistrictandthespecialTribunalpassed impugned order dated 06'02'2021 dismissing the said appeal' Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending that it is neither a pending revision nor an appeal in terms of Section 16(l) of ROR Act,2020' [n terms of Section 16(1) of ROR Act' 2 only pending revisions and pending appeals shall stand transfer to respondent No.2. But the aforesaid application was filed under Regulation No.3 (2) (A)(l ) of the Regularion, 1959. Therefore, respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to decide the same and the impugned order is illegal.

4. Sri V.S.R.M.V. Prasad Sanaka, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 14 fatly conceded that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction and it is respondent No.3 who has to decide the application filed by the petitioners and eight others

5. As rightly contended by both the learned counsel for the petitioners and the leamed counsel for unoffrcial respondents that after promulgation of ROR Act, 2020, all the pending appeals and revision cases under the provisions of relangana Rights in Land and pattadar Pass Books Act, l97I shall stand transferred to the Special rribunals in terms of Section 16(t) of ROR Act, 2O?0. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioners and eight others was under Regulation No.3(2)(A)(l) of the Rbgulation, 1959 and it is neither an appeal nor revision filed under ROR Act, 1971. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot decide the same. Infact, the said application cannot be transferred to respondent No 2. ;/

6. 3 In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated

06.02.2021 1n Special TribunaVACPTlDll4lgl2l2l passed by the respondent No.2, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 with a direction to decide the said application No.E/351/17 filed by the petitioners and eight others under Regulation No.3(2)(A)(1) of the A.P. Schedu.le Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law by putting the petitioners and eight others and respondent Nos.5 to 14 on notice and affording them an opportunify. The said application was filed in the year 2017, therefore, respondent No.3 shall endeavor to dispose of the said application strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shaIl stand closed. t

29.08.2024 Lpd K. LAKSHMAN,J