High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or more in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of Resoordent No.3 in entertaining/adjudicating appeal vide file No.F1121812023 cll 17.06.2023 filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 Uls.24 of Telangana Abolition of Inarns; Act, 1955 against the orders of Respondent No.a (RDO) dt.16.01.1990 in File No.L/1 15211989 granting ORC to the Petitioner in respect of land adm.Ac 1(11 gts in Sy.No.'16 situated at Bandlaguda Village, Near Nagole, Uppal Mandr; l, Medchal-t\/alkalgiri District, without limitation petition under section 24(1) of Telangana Abolition lnams Act, '1955 as illegal arbitrary against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct Respondent No.3 to adjudicate the ap,3s2l No.F1l21Bl2O23 taking limitation point U/s.24(1) of Telangana Abolition lrrams Act, '1 955 into consideration and entitlement of Respondent Nos.6 to 9 farrily member share in land adm.Ac.'1 .01 gts in Sy.No. l6 situated at Bandlaguda \/illage, Near Nagole, U p p a I t\/ a nd a l, tVl e d c h a I - tt/ a I ka j g i ri D i stri ct. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci,cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr ay be pleased to stay all further proceedings in file No.F1l218l2O23 dt.17.06.2023 issued by Respondent No.3 in respect of land adm.Ac.'1 .01 gts in Sv.No.16 situated at Bandlaguda Village, Near Nagole, Uppal Mandal, Medcha -l\4alkajgiri District to appear the petitioner on 15.07.2023. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 BETWEEN 1 2 U.Madhavi Latha, D/o. Late N.Satyanarayana W/o. Ll Bhanu Prasad, aged about 44 yearc, Occ. housewife, Rl/o. H.no.1-6:1, Abdullapur Village, Abdullapurmet [\4andal, Ranga Reddy District. V.Swetha, D/o. Late N.Satyanarayana, Wo. V.Ramakanth, Aged. 40 Years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.1-fu54, Bodhi Enclave, t)houdariguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

3. N.Preetham Kumar, S/o. Late N. Satyan arayana, Ager: about . 37 yrs, Occ. Pvt. Employee, Rl/o. H.No.2-2-207, Ramalayam Street Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

4. S.Sravanthi, D/o. Late N.Satyanarayana W/o. S.Venka':a Krishna Aged about .35 yrs, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. Flat No.2F3,3rd floor, Svragruha Towers, Road No.1, Brindavan Colony, A S.Rao Nagar, Medchal Mall..a11;iri District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT Nos. 6 to 9 AND 1 N.Sudhakar Chary, S/o. Late N.tvluchukunda Chary, Aged' 'H.No.11-12-15913, Road No.6, lncome iirirt.s, Rl/o R.K.Purar, KothaPet, HYderabad' 70 Years. Occ. Tax Colony, ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER 2. rhe state of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, HYderabad'

3. The District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District' 4. The Additional collector (Revenue), Medchal Malkajgiri District. at Anthaipally, ShamirPet

5. The Revenue Divisional officer, Keesara, Medchal Malkajgiri District' 6. The Tahsildar, Uppal lvlandal, I\'4edchal f\/alkajgiri District' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 5 petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto Vacatetheinterimordersdaled12.O7.2023inW.P.No.18228ot2023,andalso dismiss the above writ Petition No.18228 0I 2023 as not maintainable, and award exemplary costs in favour of the answering Respondents' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No'1to5 : ASST' GP FOR REVENUE co u nse r f o r th e Re s po nde nts N o.6tor' :$ :rfl? [1Ht?1]fiT)rThe o ov The Coud made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA lILISHETTY Writ Petition No.18228 of 2023 ORDER: This WriL Petition is ll led sccking to issLtc a rvrit of Mandantus declaring thc action of respondr-llt No.3 in entertaining/adjudicating the appeal vide File No.Fli2l812023, dated 17.06.202i, fited by lcspondent Nos.6 t<.' 9 under the Telangana Abolition of lnams Act. 1955, as illegal rrtci against the principles of nattrral justice.

2. I Ieard Sli Padala Pravin Kutnar, leamcd trourtsel for petitioner, Ieamed Assistant Govemment Pleader lor Revenue appearing fbr respondent Nos. I to 5 and Sri A.AbhlrrarLdan Reddy, leamed counsel representing Sri K.Raghavender R:ddy, learned counsel-on-record fbr respondent Nos.6 to 9.

3. Learned counsel for the pctitioner submirted that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of lan:l ltdmeasuring Ac. 1.01 guntas in Sy.No. l6 situated at Bandlaguda \,'illage, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malka.igiri I)istrict (hereinafter rcl'erred to as 'subject land) br virtue of Occr"rpancl' Right Ccrlific:rrlc (ORC) vide Proc.No.L/1152 1989, dated 01.02.1990, rvhich was preceded by a ";iii.- ) LN. ..l lfP.No.I E22E of 202.1 detailed order dated 16.01.1990; that the subject land devolved upon the petilioner herein, since all the family mernber.s who have shares in the sub-iect land, including N. Satyanarayana_father of the rvrit petitioners, and also the cousins of the petitio ner, viz., N.Panduranga Chary, N.Gnana Cl.rary and N.prakash Chary havc given their swom staternents relinquishing thcir r.ights in respect of the subject land in f'avour of thc petitioner and as such, considering the same, the Revenue Divisional Offrcer, Hyderabad Division, has issued ORC in Iavour of the petitioner in Form-lll, dated

01.02.1990 and the nanre ol the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and further, pattadar passbooks were also issucd in his favour. He lurther submittcd that due to abnormal escalation of value of subject land, respondent Nos.6 to 9, who are children ol N.Satyanarayana-one of the brothers of the petitioner, with ill intention have filed an Appeal before respondent No.3-Additinoal Collector (Revenue), Medchal-Malkajgiri District, under Section 24 of the 'felangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.

3.1. Learned counsel for petitioner lurther submitted that the said Appeal has been filed by rcspondent Nos.6 to 9 afler a lapse of 3 3 years liom the dare ol issuance of ORC to the petitioner, that -) 1i.4, J )l/P. \to. 8228 o/ 2023 too, without filing an application fbr condonation of d,:,lay in filing the said appeal, ivhich is mandato$/. He further srrhnritted that except saying that the appeal is fjled rvithin limitatiorr pcriod, no explanation has been olfered by respondent Nos.6 to 9

3.2. Learned counsel lor petitioner further subn itted that as the Appeal was not entertained by respondent No.3 at lll-lt instance in view of limitation, respondenr Nos.6 to 9 llled tlririt petition No.77l3 of 2023 belore this Court by suppressing rhe material facts and merely stated that respondent No.3 is not enr{.'rl.aining the appeal preferred by them and that this Court dispose,.L of the said Writ Petition, vide order dated 17.03.2023, directin::. respondent No.3 to dispose ol- thc appeal filed by respondenr Nos.() (o 9 within a period of six months lrom the datc ol receipt of a ..opy of that order. Leamed counsel further submitted that in pursuance of the said order, r'espondent No.3 entertained the appL.:rl filed by respondent Nos.3 to 9, without consider-ing the lirnir,Ltion period, therefore, aggrier ed by the said action of respond!.nr No.3, thc present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Per contla, learned counsel lbr respondent N,rs.6 to 9 submitted that respondent Nos.6 to 9-childrcn of N. S:r rv.rrna rayana, \ '---.! 4 LNA, J H'P.r\o.18228 oI 2023 - who is one of the brothers of petitioner, are disputing the swom statement purported to have been given by N.Satyanarayana retinquishing his right in favour of the pctitioner. He further submitted that respondcnt Nos.6 to 9, being legal heirs of N.Satyanarayana have also share in the subject land, therefore, once they carne to know about issuance of ORC in [avour of petitioner, they prelened appeal before respondent No.3 within a period of30 days from thc date ofknowledge and in fact, at para-8 of appeal, respondent Nos.6 to t have clearly explained that they came to know about issuance ol ORC in lavour of petitioner only in the month olNovernber, 2022 and alter obtaining certified copy ol the said ORC on 05.01.2023, they filed Appeal in accordance with Section 24 of t|rc 'lclangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955' He further submitted that pctitioner has only pointed out to ground No.(J) without referring to para-8 of the appeal, hence, this Court vide order dated 11.07.2023 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the Appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9. By submitting thus, learled counsel seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel fbr respondent Nos'6 to 9 to buttress his subrnissions relicd upon the judgrnent of this Courl in ) LN,I, J H:p. \ /). t 82?8 of 2023 M.Rontulamma l's. Revenue Divisionol Ofricert. In t're said case, this Court took cognizance of- thc fact that the order of li,: Revenue Divisional Officer.granting OR(l in fhvour ol f-ather t, - respondent Nos.3 to 6 was passed without any notice to the pctilioners, who are parties therein, as alleged by the petitioners, rrnd lur1her, respondent Nos.3 to 6 also did not plead as to isstrrrnce ol any notice to the petitioners at the titne rvhen the said ()r'Jr'r granting ORC was passed, rnuch less, serving a copy of the saicl oldel on the pctitioners. In such circumstanccs, this Court held tl .rt linritation tbr challenging the order would commence only hon' thc date of knowledge of order and not liom the datc of thc ,rlder under challenee.

6. ln the instant case, admittedly, respondent Nos.t: t,r 9 are not parties to the ORC proceedings and further, it is also r ot thcir case that thc said ORC was issued in thvour of petiti,,r1cr without issuance of notice to their Iather'-N. Satyanarayana, wlt., rvas a pafly tl-rerein. and that even a copy of the said ORC u,as r r)t served on

7. As such, the facts and circurnstances ol-the insrarrt case and that- al the case in M.Rnmultmma (.cited supra ) ar.e entirely I 2019 SCC Online TS 3455 6 LNA, J tt'P. No.l822E of 2023 .l distinct. Therefore, the judgrnent ol this Court io M.Ramulumma's case (cited supra) is not applicable to the instant case'

8. I{owever, learned counsel fairly submitted that the appellate authority rnay be dircctcd to frame an issue as to the limitation and decide the same, belore entertaining the Appeal fited by respondent Nos.6 to 9.

9. Learned Assistant Covet'nl. ent Pleader fbr Revenue subrritted that the Writ Petition rral' be disposed of directing the appellate authority to frame an issttc of lirnitation, decided the same and therealter, proceed with thc appeal filed by respor.rdent Nos.6 to 9.

10. A perusal of record discloscs that in the appeal, respondent Nos.6 to 9, though at para-J of Grounds have mentioned that appeal is filed within the prescribed petiod, at para-S specifically mentioned that they came to kno',v about issuance of ORC dated

16.O2.l9go in favour of petitioner only in the month of Novernber, 2022;thatthey obtained certified copy of ORC on 05'01'2023;and thereafter, they filed appeal on 06.02-2023, therefore, the Appeal is within the period of limitation. 1 I,NA, J H l'. ;o. l822ll o[ 202J ll. Section 24( l) of the Telangana Abolition oj I'lams Act, 1955, stipulates that an appeal against the decision o1'th,.r Collector under Section l0 ol'the said Act, which includes issui 'rcc ol ORC. has to be hled within thirty days fi'om the date of suclr order and if there is dela1,, sufficient cause has to be shown. I

12. In the light oi' the above and considering th.' sLtbmissions made by learned counsel tbr respondent Nos.6 to !) a nd lcalned Assistar-rt Govemrnent Pleader lor Revenue, this Cotl.t dL'erns it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition directinr: respotrdent No.i to h'arne a preliminary issue on the aspect ,,1- limitation, decide the same on rnerits, by duly adverting to 'Sectir',n 24( I ) of the 'l'elar.rgana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and allording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and pa:-. ,rppropriate orders in accordance with law and subject to result ,rf the said preliminary issue, respondent No.3 shall proceed lLr h,rr \\'ith the appeat filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 and pass apprcpliate ordcrs thereon as expeditiously AS possible. It is made r le',rr that the petitioner is at libemy to take all the objections nr luding the Iimitation aspect belbre the appellate authority 8 LNA, J ll'P.,\o.18 228 of 202-l !

13. Subject to the above directions and observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

14. Miscellaneous petitions pending. il any, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG TANT REGI ECTION OFFICER I To, '1 . The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretari Hyderabad. t, State of Telangana,

2. The District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 3. The Additional Collector (Revenue), l\4edchal Malkajgiri District. at Anthaipally, Shamirpet

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara, [\iledchal Malkajgiri District. 5. The Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, Medchal lVlalkajgiri District. 6. One CC to SRI PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana.

8. One CC to SRI K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies. BSK PVL HIGH COURT DATED:09tOgt2O2S ..-' l,o., :\- : - -\\ L^ \.. ,^ ). i,; 2[:jiP M : j \,, i., \i2+ -\' ,, '\-t-a1,, .,r-,-,' -;.2' \, :.=---- ORDER WP.No.1822B ot 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,[ N \q