High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 Marrd;:mus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of Respor dent No.3 in entertaining/adjudicating, appeal vide file No.F1121912023 dl 17.062023 filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 U s.24 of Telangana Abolition of lnanrs Act. 1955 against the orders of Respondent No.4 (RDO) dt.'16.01 .1990 in I:il: 116.171 151/1989 granting ORC to the Petitioner in respect of land adm.Ac C 25 gts in Sy.No '1 7 situated at Bandlaguda Village, Near Nagole, Uppal l\tlandal Vedchal-lVlalkajgiri District, without limitation petition under section 24(1) ol Tr:langana Abolition lnams Act, 1955 as illegal arbitrary against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct Respondent No.3 to adjudicate the ap6re,rl No.F1121912023 taking limitation point Uls.24(1) of Telangana Abolition lnarns Act, '1955 into consideration and entitlement of Respondent Nos.6 to 9 farrrillr member share in land adm.Ac.0.25 gts in Sy.No.17 situated at Bandlaguda ! lage, Near Nagole, Uppal IVIandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to stay all further proceedings in file No.F1121912023 dt.171612023 issLred by Respondent No.3 in respect of land adm.Ac.0.25 gts in Sy.No.17 sitLated at Bandlaguda Village, Near Nagole, Uppal Mandal, I\i'ledchal-Malkajgiri D,s:rict to appear the petitioner on 1 5107 12023. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Between:

1. U.Madhavi Latha, D/o. Late N.Satyanarayana, W/o. U Bfranu Prasad, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.no.1-63, Abdullapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. V.Swetha, D/o Late N.Satyanarayana, W/o. V.Ramakanth, Aged. 40 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.'1-fu54, Bodhi Enclave, Ohcudarrguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, lVledchal Malkajgiri District.

3. N.Preetham Kumar, S/o. Late N.Satyanaruyana, Agecl about. 37 yrs, Occ. f_vt Emplgyee, RIo. H.No.2-2-207, Ramalayam Street Nagote Viilage, Uppat Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

4. S.Sravanthi, D/o. Late N.Satyanarayana, W/o. S.Venkata Krishna, Aged about 35 yrs Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. Flat No.2F3. 3rd floor, Swagruha Towers, Road No.1, Brindavan Colony, A.S.Rao Nagar, I\iledchal Malkajgiri District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS Nos. 6 to I AND 1 N.Sudhakar Chary, S/o. Late N.Muchukunda Chary, Aged. 70 Years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.11-12-159/3, Road No.6, lncome Tax Colony, R.K.Puram, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER The State of Tetangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District. The Additional Collector (Revenue), lrledchal [r/alkaigiri District. at Anthaipally, Shamirpet. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara, Iriledchal ltrlalkalgiri District. The Tahsildar, Uppal tr/andal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 2 3 4 E 6 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 5 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 orders dated '1 1.07.2023 in W.P.No 18032 of 2023, and also dismiss the above writ Petition No.18032 01 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 counser ror the Respondents No.6to, ' :# :.fi?XiHit?tUl_T3Jheoov The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICB LAXMI NARAYANA AI,ISHETTY Writ Petition No.18032 of 2023 ORDER: 'fhis Writ Petition is filed seeking to issur r' urit of' ifuntlamus declaring thc action of respondenl No.i in cntertaining/adjudicating the appeaI vide File No.l:i ]1912023. dated 17.06.2023, filed by respondent Nos.6 to () Itndel thc fclangana Abolition of Inarns Act, 1955, as illegal ant rrgairrst thc plinciplcs ol' I.ratulai j ustice

2. Heard Sli Padala Plavin Kumar, learned . t',unsel Lbr pctitioner, Iearned Assistant (]ovemment Pleader 1or Revenuc appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri A.Abhina rtian [{edcl1,, leanred counsel representing Sri K.Raghavender Rerltly, learned counsel-on-r'ecorcl fbr respondent Nos.6 to 9.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnitt.'tl that thc petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land utLmcasulin-e Ac.0.25 gLrntas in Sy.No.l7 situated at Bandlaguda Yilr-rge, Uppal Mandal. MedchrLl-Malkajgiri District (hereinafter re lL'rrecl to as 'subject tand) by virtr-re of Occupancy Right Certificat,: rORC) r'idc Proc.No.L/ll5l/1989, dated 01.02.1990, which rvas plccerled by'a I ) LNA, J tl' P..\ o. I I 0-l 2 oJ )0 2.1 detailed order dated 16.01.1990; that tl.re subject land devolved upon the petitioner herein, since all the family rnelnbers who have shares in the subject land, inctuding N. Satya llarayana- father of the writ petitioners, and also the cousins ol' thc petitioner, viz', N.Panduranga Chary, N.Gnana Chary and N.Prakash Chary have given their swom staternents relir.rquishing thcir rights in respect of the subject land in favour olthe petitioncr arrd as such. considcring the same, the Revenue Divisional Otllcer, H1'delabacl Division, has issued ORC in favour of the petitioncr iu Folm-ll[, dated

01.02.1990 and the name of the petitioncr u'as urrrtated in the revenue records and further, pattadar passbooks were also issucd in his favour. He further submitted that due to abnormal escalation of value of subject land, respondent Nos.6 to 9, n'ho are children of N.Satyanarayana-one of the brothels ol the petitioner, with ill intention have filed an Appeal befbre respondent No'3-Additinoal Collector (Revenue), Medchal-Malkajgiri District, under Section 24 of the Telangana Abolition ol Inarns Act, 1955'

3.1. Learned counsel for petitioner further subrnitted that the said Appeal has been filed by respondent Nos 6 to 9 after a lapse ol 33 years h'orn the date of issuance of ORC to the petitioner, that - l L'\"1' J l{/P.,\trt. I ,903 2 ttl 202J too, without filing an aDplication lor condonation oldela)' in flling the said appeal, which is mandatory. He further submitted that erceot saying that the appeal is flled within lirnitatiorr period. no explanation has been offered by respondent Nos.6 to 9

3.2. l.earned counsel lbr petitioner furlher submittecl that as thc Appeal w'as not entertained by respondent No.3 at first irrstance in vlew of lirnitation, respondent Nos.6 to 9 filed Wlir Petition No.7682 ol 2023 betbre this Court by suppressing r rc mal.erial lacts and rncrely sLated that respondent No.3 is not enrcrtlining the appeal pret-erred by thern and that this Courl disposerl of the said Writ Petition. vidc order dated 20.03.2023, directing rt:spondcnr No.3 to dispose olthe appeal fited by respondentNos.6 to 9 rvithin a period ot- six months from the date of receipt of a copy ol that order. Leamed coLrnsel further submitted that in pursuarLce of the said order, respondent No.3 entertained the apperLl filed by respondent Nos.3 to 9, u,ithout considering the limitation per.iod, therefbre, aggr-ievcd by the said action of respondenr No.3, the present Writ Petition is filed

4. Per contla, learned coLlnsel tbr- r.espondent l\os.(r to 9 subrnittcd that rcspondent Nos.6 to 9-children of N. San.r,nar.avana. 4 -=! L.\1, J ll:P.,\o- I80-t) (rf )02l who is one ol the brothers of petitioner, are disputing the swom statement purported to have been given by N.Satyanarayana relinquishing his right in favour ol the petitiorrer. Hc llrther subrnitted that respondent Nos.6 to 9, being [egal heirs of N.Satyanarayana have also share in the subject land. thcrelbre, once they carne to know about issuance ol ORC in favour ol petitioner, they preferred appeal belore respondetrt No.-l rr ithin a period of 30 days from the date of knowledge and ir.r t'act. at para-8 of appeal, respondent Nos.6 to t have clearly explained that they calne to know about issuance of ORC in lavour ol petitionel only in the month of November, 2022 and after obtaining cctlifled copy ol the said ORC on 05.01.2023, they filed Appeal in accordance with Section 24 of theTelangana Abolition of [natns Act, 1955. Ile further submitted that petitioner has only pointed out to ground No.(J) without referring to para-8 of the appea[, hence, this Court vide order dated 11.07.2023 granted interim stay ol all further proceedings in the Appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9. By subrnitting thus, leamed counsel seeks to disrniss the Writ l)ctition

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 9 to buttress his submissions relied upon the judgment of this Cotttl in - 5 LN/1, J WP.,\o. i8032 of 2023 M.Rotnulunmo V's. Revenue Divisionol OfJicert. In tl'e said case, this Court took cognizancc of the fact that the order o1'tho Revenue Divisional Olllcer _sranting ORC in favour of lather cr1'r'espondent Nos.i to 6 was p:rssed without any notice to the petitioners, who are parlies therein, AS alleged by the petitioners, irnd lu(her, respondent Nos.3 to 6 also did not plead as to issLurnce of any notice to the petit ioncrs at thc tirr.re when the said or,1cr granting ORC was passed, rnuch less, serving a copy of the saici or.der on the petitioners, [n such circumstances, th is Court heid thrrt limitation lor challenging the order would comrnence only frorr r,re date o1' knowledge o f' orrler and not from the date of the rrr der under challenge

6. In the instarrt case, admittedly. respondent Nos.6 to 9 are not parties to the OR(' proceedings and further, it is also nor their case that the said ORC was issued in favour of petiticncr without issuance ol'notice to their f'ather-N. Satyanarayana, whc, ryas a party therein, and that iven a copy of the said ORC u,as n,.rt served on him.

7. As such, thc lhcts and circumstances of the instirr t case and that ol- the rsse tn M.Rtntulantmr (cited supra) a|e entirely I 2019 SCC Online TS 3455 \--lti 6 l"\ '1"1 H'P..\it- 180.t 2 of 202-t distinct. Therefore, the judgment of this court in M.Rtnruramnta,s case (cited supra) is not applicable to the instant case. 8. However, learned counsel fairly subntitted that thc appcllate authority uray be directed to frame an issue as to thc limitation and decide the same, before entertaining the Appear Iiled by rcspondent Nos.6 to 9.

9. Lealned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue subr.ritted that the writ petition r:ray be disposed or dir.ecting rhc appellate authority to f.ame an issue of limitation, decided lhe sanrc and thereafler, proceed with the appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9.

10. A perusal of record discloses that in the appeal, respondent Nos.6 to 9, though at para-J of Grounds have mentioned that appeal is tlled within the prescribed period. ar para-S specifically n-rentioned that they came to know about issuance of ORC datcd

16.02.1990 in favour of petitioner only in the month of Novembcr. 2022; that they obtained cerrified copy of ORC on 05.01.202-ll and thereafter, they filed appeal on 06.02.2023, therefore, the Appeal is within the period ol limitation. 7 LNA, J WP.t\'t. t8032 oJ 2023 I l. Section 2a( I ) ol the Telangana Abolition o1' Inams Act, 1955, stipulates that an appcal against the decision of tlrc Collector under Section l0 ol the said Act. rvhich includes issuar cr: of ORC. has to be fited within thifty days tiom the date of such order and if , I there is delay, su lficient cause has to be shown.

12. In the light ol the above and considering the r.r-rbrnissions made b)' lealned counscl lbr rcspondent Nos.6 to 9 ur.d learned Assistant Governr.nent Pleader fbr Revenue, this Cor.rrr deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition directing respondent No.3 to frante a prelirninary issue on the aspect o iimitation, decide the same on melits, by duly adverting to Section 21(l) of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and :rl-lbrding an opportunity of hcarins to both the parties and pass rppropriate orders in accordance rvith lar.v and subject to resutt of the said preliminary issuc. respondent No.3 shall proceed furt rcr with the appeal filed by responder.rt Nos.6 to 9 and pass appropr rate orders thereon as expeditiously AS possible. [t is made c]errr that the petitioner is at liberty to takc all the objections irrciuding the limitation aspect I)etbre the appellare aLrthority 8 I',\'A, J t{P.No.18032 of 202.}

13. Subject ro the abovc direcl.ions and observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

14. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closecl. No costs. //TRUE COPY// - M. OSMAN ALI BAIG TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, I fhe Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat,state of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. fhe District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 3. The Additional Collector (Revenue), Medchal Malkajgiri District. at Anthaipally, S hamirpet.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 5. The Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, Medchat Malkajgiri Dlstrict. 6. One CC to SRI PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR, Advocate. tOpUCI 7. Two CCs to cP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Tetangana louTl B. One CC to SRI K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies. BSK PVL HIGH COURT DATE D :0 910912025 I 4 .'.1".' ,/.': -.'l o,i,N...\ /,\\{ '., L\i j. .. .t' ; 2 4 ii:r ?ffi it tt 1' a.l _), i,/ '',,, :/ ORDER WP.No.18032 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS