High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. 4. 5. 6.

11. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, at Hyderabad. Th6 Court oi Special Tribunal, Suryapet (Constitut.{l' under G.O.[\/s No'4, Revenue Assigjnment-1 Department, dated 1 2-01 -2021 \ The District Collector, Suryapet, Suryapet District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Suryapet District. The Tahsildar, Suryapet Mandal, Suryapet District. Lunvath Ram(oti, S/ci. t-ate Amar Singh, Aged 65 years, Ri/o. Laxmi Thanda' H/o. Yerkaram Village of Suryapet Mandal and District. Lunavath Evi Lal, Sio. Lakya, Aged 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o' Laxmi Thanda, H/o. Yerkaram Vi[lage of Suryapet Mandal and District. Lunavaifr Sivi Lal, S/o. Lakya-, Aged 40 years, Occ.. Agriculture, Fl/o. Laxmi Thanda, H/o. Yerkaram Village of Suryapet Mandal and. District Lunavaih Raja Ram, S/o. Lakya, Aged. Major, Occ' Agriculture, Rl/o. Laxmi Thanda, H/o. Yerkaram Village of Suryapet.Mandal and District f-unJviin Sfrankar, S/o. late Lakpathi,'Aged 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o' Laxmi Thanda, H/o. Yerkaram Village of Suryapet Mandal and District' [univatn Chaian Singh, Sio. Late Lakpathi, Aged 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. iiimiTfranda, H"/o. Yerkaram Village of Suryapet Mandal and District'

12. Lunavath Narsingh, S/o. Late Lalya, Aged about 25 years, Oct;. Aqriculture Rr,/o. Yerkaram Village of Suryapeit trrtaidat and Districi. Rl/o. Yerkaram Village of Suryapet Mandal and District_

13. Lunavath Bheemla, S/o.-Late Ramjee, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, '14. Morishetti Babu Rao, S/o. Late Mallaiah, Aged about 65 years Occ. Business, R/o. Yerkaram Village of Suryap6t Mandal and Districi. l5.lvlorishetti Shoban Babu, S/o. Late,Mall-aiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Yerkaram Village of Suryapet MTandal and District. l6.lUorishetti Vern kateshwarlu, _S/o. Late Soniaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ. ' Business, Rl/o. Yerkaram Village of Suryapet [\/an?al and District. (Respondent 12 to 16 are not necessary parties)

..RESPONDENTS Petition under Artrcre 226 of the constitution of lndia pray,ing that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to iSSUe thr: j11ss11., or order in the nature of certiorari to the respondents to produce before the court the records and quash order dated 1010612021 made in old case No F2t2353120'l9 passed by the Respondent No. 2 Special rribunal, Suryapet wrongly observing that the Respondents No. 6 to 11 are the owners and possessors of the lands in question and petitioners not claiming flTough the Lunavath Jogiya or ginar Protected renant as the same is arbitrary. unjust, illegar and without of ru'isdiction and not considering the documents and written arguments filed by the petitioners herein and therefore the impu,3ned order as viotatron of principal of natural justice without taking recourse of basis procedure contemplated in lar,r, for adjudication of civil disputes apart from being vrolation of Article 14, 21 and !i00 A of constitution of lndia by issuing direction or order the respondents to procuce before the court the record and quash or any approprrate writ or a direction in the circumstances of the case and dismissing the appeal filed by the Respondenls No. 6 to 11 in old case No.' F212353i2019 on the file of the Respondent No.2 or else the petitioners put to great hardship and suffer irreparable loss and injury. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under section 15-l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may tre plur."d G suspend the operation of the impugned order dated. 091061202.1 made in old case No. F2/235312019 passed by the Respondent No.2 speciar rribunar, suryapet District. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G.VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: GP FOR REVENUE Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.6 TO I 1: SRI S'V'RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos-12 TO 16: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.23884OF 2021 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents and perused the entire material available on record

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking following relief: "...to is.tue lhe dircction or order in lhe nature of the writ of Certiorri l<t the respontlents b produce before the (.-ourt the record's ond quash orden dated 10.06.2021 made in old case No.F2/2353/2019 passed b.v the respondenl I'1o.2 Spe<:ial Tribunal. Suryapet wrongly observing thut lhe respondenl Nosi to I I are the owners and possessors of the lands in qru,stion and pelilioners not cloiming through the Lunovalh Jogiya original protecled tenant as lhe sane rc arbitrary. unjust. illegal and withoul oJ iurisdiction ond not considering lhe documents ond v'ritten arguments filed by the petilioners herein and therefore the impugned order as violation of prin,:iples rtf natural justice v,ithoul loking recourse o;f basis procedure contemploted in krw for adjudication oJ civil dispules aparl.fron being violation of Articles I 4, 2 I and 300-A of cons'titution of htclia b) is.tuin[: direction or order lhe respon.le4ts to produce belore lhe L'ourt the record und quush or any appropriale v'rl or a direction in the circumstances of the cuse und dismi-ssing the appeal filed by the respondenl Nos.6 to 1l in old case No.F2/2353/2019 on the file of the respondent lt'o.2 or else lhe pelitioners put to ffeqt hardship and sulfer irreparable lc'ss ctnd injury.. "

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Revenue Divisional Officer, SuryapeUrespondent No.4 has issued an order dated

24.06.2019 vide Case No.D21214212017, in respect of lands to an extent of Ac.17.27 guntas in Survey No.315, Ac.8.'l 5 guntas in Survey No. 316 and Ac.1.25 guntas in Survey No. 321, situated at 2 Yerkaram Village of Suryapet Mandal. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos. 6 to 11 herein had filed a revision before the Special Tribunal, SuryapeVrespondent No.2 under Section 9 of the TS Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and under Section 90 of the Telangana Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter "The Act, 1950") and the same was disposed of by the Special Tribunal, Suryapet, through the impugned order dated

09.06.2021 vide Case No.F21235312019.

4. Writ Petitioners would contend that the Special Tribunal lacksjurisdictiontodeterminetheaspectsintherevisionunder Section 90 of the Act, '1950, therefore, the impugned order dated

09.06.2021 is non-est. They have asserted that this Court vide order dated 02.09.2022 in W.P. No.34473 ol 2022 had determined that the Special Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any appeal filed under Section 90 of the Act, 1950 and it attained finality'

5. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly admitted the legal position and pointing to the relevant paragraphs prayed for passing similar order in the present writ petition as was in W.P. No.34476 of 2022 and to direct transmission of the record to the appropriate forum \ \ "'r,t.7 J

6. This C:ourt in W.P.No.34473 of 2022, considering the aspect that the appeal/revision filed under Section 90 of the Act, 1g50, is not maintainable before the Special Tribunal, held in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 as follows:

3. ',rhe very special Tribunql i-s constitured under Sec:tiotr 16 of the Te.langana Rights in Lqnd (ud pqttadar passbooks Act. 2020 for the p'urpose of the disposal of the appeals/revisionr thal ere peruling ,under the provisions ol the Telangana Righls in Land and Pattadar Passboolcs Act, l97t (or short, 'the Act,l97l,) as on the date of repeal of the said Acr only. ln other words, rhe Special Tribunalt; constituted under Section 16 of the Act, 2020 are conferrecl vith jurisdiction only to deal t,ith lhe oppeals/revisions lhat ore fled and pending under the Act, 197 L But, surprisingly, the appeal slqted to hqve been ftecl by the petitionirs unir Section 90 o/ the AcL 1950 came to be transJerred to the Special Tribunal and the sqme was disposed of by the Speciol Triunul, Yadadri lThongrr District, lhrough the impugned order, though rhe Special T-ribunal is lacking .iurisdiction to entertain or coisicler any such appeals under the Act, 19j0. 4 . As noted above, the Special Tribunal is totatfi, tacking jurtsdiction to entertdin any appeuls fitccl under Section 90 ctf the Act, 1950. But, in the inslqnt cese, the appeal rha u,as filed iruler Section 9) of the Act, t950 bl, the pctitioncrs bej,re 7arnn,u1.r, No.5 is erroneou-sly transferred to lhe Speciel Trihunal uncl lhe same was disposed oJ through lhe impugned rtrcler.

5. In view of the sqme, thirj Court is ol lhe view lh<tt the action of lhe Special Tribunal in receiving lhe appeal fibtl uruler Section 9t) of the AcL 1950 and tlisposirtg o1 tii xrle js totally without.iu,.isdiclion ond any such orler passcd is nttn_est in the .,ye of law. \ \ 4 ln the aforementioned legal position, the Special l-ribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appear/revision under sec;tion go of the Act, 1950. Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, the impugned order dated 09.06.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal is liable to . be set aside and is accordingly set aside. However, having regard I I 4 to the dispute and as the mafter has to be determined by the concerned Joint Collector, the Special Tribunal, Suryapet, is directed to relegate the entire record of the related case No.F212353t2019 to the Joint Collector, Suryapet, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' Thereafter, the Joint Collector, Suryapet, is directed to prioritize the matter and determine the appeal, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the file. g Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs Asa sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, stands //TRUE COPY// SN/- P PADMANABHAREDDY --'aisrsraNTREGISTRAR CTION OFFICER State of Telanqana. ',. ,n" Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' Secretariat' at Hyderabad' z. in?-Court of S"pecial Tribunal' Suryapet' -. . . , 5. in" oLlii"t collector, suryapet' 9"v'p-"1?lllt ;. +i;; [;;;;; bivisio ;;Urrii" i, ry va bet'. 1l] ry-apet D istrict' E iii" iiitiron, srr1,apet tvlandal' Suryapet District' 6. o;:, btiii Silr c Vr"N"xniA nAnnvANA' Advocate IoPUCI 7. Two CCs to GP fOn tEVet'r'Ue" fiigh Cou't for the State of Telangana' at a. iji,l"btiJshr s t nnunxA, Advocate [oPUC] 9. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad. [OUT] PSK. GJP 6 HIGH COURT DATED:211A1,2025 ORDER WP.No.23884 of 2021 f s{A 14, q 25 r',:; 2025 z .L ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @*'W