The 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 lo lssue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondent.no.2 in issuing the impugned Memo bearing No. F21245512O16 dated- 23.08.2016 and there by rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioners herein by not according an opportunity to put forth their claim/arguments before issuing such memo as the same is illegal, arbitrary, against the judicial principles and natural justice and consequently set a side the same, in the interest of justice l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 (WPMP. NO: 54297 0F 2016) Petition under Section '151 cpc praying that in the c r ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cc rrt may be pleased suspend the impugned memo issue by the 2nd responde r vide Memo bearing No. F21245512016 dt 23.08.2016 pending disposal of ma r writ petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. AVANCHA H CHAKRAVAFI',Hy Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.43997 of2OL6 ORDER This writ petition is liled seeking the following prayer: "...declaring the action of the respond_ents more partianlarly respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned Memo beaing No.F2/2aSS/20j6 dated 23.08.2016 and therebu rejecting the reuieuL petition Jiled by the petitioners LLerein by not accord.ing on oppoftunity to put-forth their claim/ arguments before issuing such memo as the same is i egat. arbitrary against the judicial principles and natural justice and consequently set aside the same in the interest of 1ustice.. . "

2. The lacts of the case in brief are that one Mr.Srinivasa Rao was the pattadar of agricuitural land admeasuring Ac.4-33 gts., in Sy.No.387 situated at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and one Nlettu @ Madiga Kistaiah was cultivating the said land and his name was recorded as protected terrant. After the death of Mettu @ Madiga Kistaiah, the petitioners herein being the legal heirs, have hled a suit in O.S.No.62O/2O08 for declaration seeking to declare them as legal heirs o[ Mettu @ Madiga Kistaiah before Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XVII Mctropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. The said suit was decreed in favour of petitioners herein on 2 19 .12.2OOa. Thereafter, petitioners fiied app I cation before Mandal Rcvcnue Officer, Rajendranagar llandzr] br recovery of the subject lands, howcvcr, thc same was lismissed on 11.03.2010

3. Aggricved by the order ol Mandal Rc enue Officer, petitioners have preferred appeal before respond,t rt No.2 under Section 90 oi A.P.(TA) Tcnancy and Agr.icultural 1:t, 1950. It is :;ubmitted that re spondcnt No.2 rvithout hci:ring t te petitioltet s has dismissed thc appcal as lvithdrarvn record ir r1 compromise between thc parties. It is rtrrther submitted thi r sorne ol the petitioners hr:rein have not signecl the said contl) omrse memo as such the same is not binding on the petiti, ners herein. 'l'hereafter, ltetitioners have filed review 1tc ilion before respondent No.2 under Order 4Z Rule 1 of CF I read with Section 114 C.P.C., and read with Section g9(2 of A.p.(TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950. However, rcs,l ondent No.2 without gi.zing any notice of hearing to put forth [ ;: case of the petitioners, had straight away passed the impugne r order dated 23.08.2016. Questioning the same, the present \\ I t petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drau,s, attention of to impugned memo dated 23.og.2016 ri, rerein Joint this€oarrt 3 Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District informed that he is not competent to take a review to the orders passed by the then Joint Collector Sri.C.Sudarshan Reddy, as such the review was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that no opportun ity of hearing was given to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to put forth their contentions, the review petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 89(21 of A. P. (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 195O, the Joint Collector is competent authority to review the petitioner's case.

5. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a judgment of this Court in Musali Pochairrh and others o. Mothuku Lakshminarsa,ic,h and others in C,R.P.No.I252 of 7980 dated O9.O3.1984 whereby this Court held that under Section B9(2) of the Tenancy Act; Section 114 of CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC provides with the powers werc conferred to the Tahsildar, Tribunal and Collector for review. By relerring to the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner pray this Court to consider the review filed by thc pctitioner. '=- . / I *'"1 \ 4

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Governnt:nt pleader for Revenue submits that earlier the Joint Collect<. r Ranga Reddy District in Case No.Fl/F2/ lZlOl2OlO dateci 2).11.2011 has recorded the compromise flled by petitioners r rd respondent Nos.S to 9, Il, 12, 14 to 18 therein and dismiss:d the revision in terms of compromise alld the matter has b<,r r settled out of Court and the applicants agreed to withdraq. r1e appeal. As such the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn as t )e matter was settled out of Cor-rrt.

7. Learnecl counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are not the parties to the said corrl romise memo and that petitioners rvere declared as legal h: \-- .L ; protected tenanl and has also obtained decree irr rs ol original heir favo ur in O.S.No.62Ol2008 datcd t9.t2.2OOa. It is furthcr r ubn'ritted that all these facts u,ere brought to the notice of Jo r t Collector in the review petition, as such the Joint Collector considered the review petition along rvirl ,ught to have supporting documents. - 8. Taking into consideration the above s( t of facts and \* circhmstances of the case, the impugnerl order dated 23.O8.2016 in Memo No.F2l2aSS/2016 is hercbr ;et aside and the Joint Collector, Rajcndranagar mandal, I:ingzr Reddy '- 1r"'- ) District is directed to reconsider the review hled by the petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and by ailowing the petitioners to put-forth all their contentions and after giving a fair opportunily o[ hearing to all the effected parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance to law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the title or possession of the property. It is left open to the parties to work out their remedies independently before appropriate forum.

9. Accordingly, the WriL Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as [o costs. As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall sland dismissed. I To, SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY A ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I - I CTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue 99Oqrtme.ntr. i. iii; i;i;iboirector, ndnqinedov Didtrict, at Khairatabad' Hvderabad 5. o;; CC'd sni.'nvnNCln n CirnrnnvnnrHY,. Advocate -tgqucl ;. i;; 6d.lo 5. Two CD CoPies f On nrver'rue ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] -Cp Sgcretariat' T'S''Hyderabad BM BS MNT \ HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 ORDER t! i iArc t o c,l i? N ?[28 WP.No.43997 of 2016 * D.:e ::1lc\ I ,, () .\ * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIO { WITHOUT COSTS i l i l'.rMl t9 l> 1r