The High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings vide Proceedings No. TWA1 /135/2016 dated O2.O7.2016/18.06.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent which was confirmed by the proceedings in LTR Appeal No.A4lLTR/3'l12019 dated 23.12.2023 passed by the 2'd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KRISHNA KISHORE KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: GP FOR TRIBAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.4:SRl GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI The Court made the following: ORDER I 7 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No.3561O of 2O24 ORDER: The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the affidavit fiied in support of the petition are as under: a) The petitioner is ttre absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.39/3 to an extent of Ac.2.39 and Sy.No.4O/3 to an extent of Ac.1.O3 guntas situated at Yenaka Village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District, having succeeded the same from his ancestors. The respondent No.4 flled a complaint dated 1O.O5.2O16 alleging t1.at he purchased the schedule land from petitioner through a simple sale deed dated 12.O9.2OO9 and a notice dated 18.O5.2O 16 was issued on Form-E to the petitioner and respondent No.4 anci even before the next date of hearing, the respondent No.4 submitted a representation dated

25.05.2016 with a request to recover possession of subject lands- Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued a notice dated

14.06.2016 fixing the date of hearing as 18.O6.2016 and the said notice granting only four (4) days is invalid. The respondent No.3 has to pass Form-F i-e., ejection order under Rule 7(4) and the sarne can be executed as if it is a civil court decree, however, respondent No.3 passed order vide proceedings No.TWAl/135 /2016, wherein the Tahsildar, Utnoor Mandal was , \llK..r lvp i5610 202.1 directed to implement the said orders within 3 days and the said orders were not implemented till date and tl'rr: last para of \ the said order, originally typed as 18.O6.2018 but subsequently struck off and written as O2.O7 .2016. b) The respondent No.3 cooked up the entire order behind their back and also went on recording the findings as if the petitioner hnas attended before him on 18.06.2016 and

02.07.2016. The Tahsildar, Utnoor, mutated the name of respondent No-4 in the revenue records pertaining to the schedule land without any notice as contemplatcrl under the provisions of Land Transfer Regulations to the petitioner and he was also granted pattadar passbook and title deeds. The petitioner has been representing before the Tahsildar, Utnoor for rectihcation of entries, but he refused the samt' stating that he is bound by the orders of respondent No.3 being t}le superior officer. c) The petitioner filed Revision before respondent No. I under Section 6 of Telangana (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation 1 of i959 and its amendment 1 of 1970 against the proceedings in LTR Appeal No.A4/LTR/31 /2019 dated 23.72.2O2i, passed by respondent No.2, confirming the proceedings No.TWAl / 135 /2016 dated, Nil.O6.2016 passed by :/ l NBK..I \rl 15610 2021 respondent No.3 and also frled stay application before respondent No. I on 3O.O7.2O24 aJld the respondent No. 1 did not take up the revision or stay application of the petitioner, till date. Further, respondent No.4 is creating third-party rights on the basis of the illegal mutation pursuant to the orders of respondent No.3. Further, tlle mother of respondent No.4 also filed similar complaint against one Mr.Mohammed Nazeer Khan in W.P.No.7484 of 2024 and against one Mr.Tajuddin Khan in W.P.No.31O37 of 2024 and t].is Court uide order dated

26.04.2024 ar^d 03.12.2024 respectively, ordered not to take coercive steps in the said writ petitions.

2. The grievance of t1le petitioner in the present writ petition is that respondent No.1 is not taking up the revision or at least the stay application in Revision Petition (un-numbered) dated

30.O7.2024 filed by the petitioner.

3. Heard both sides and perused the record

4. The limited relief as sought for by the petitioner is to direct the respondent No. 1 to pass orders in the stay application frled by tlre petitioner in the revision petition dated 3O.O7.2O24 frled against the proceedings passed by the respondent No.2 dated: Nil-07-2016 and consequential proceedings in LTR Appeal No.A4ILTR/31/2019 dated 23.12.2023 passed by the I I i I .i NI]K. J !vp. i5610 202.1 respondent No.3 pending disposal of tJ.e Revision Petition dated

30.O7.2024 preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.1.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the Writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondent No.l to pass appropriate orders in accordance to law within a reasonable period on the stay application filed by the petitioner in the Revision pe tition dated 3O.O7 .2024 before lst respondent. f). Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, the wnt petition is disposed of directing the lst respondent to consider tlle sta1, application frled by tl1e petitioner in the revision petition dated 3O.O7 .2021 before respondent No. 1 flled against the proceedings issued by t1-e respondent No.3 dated: Nil-07-2016 which hacl been confirmed uide proceedings in LTR Appeal No.A4lLTR/31 /2019 d.ated 23.12.2023 by the respondent No.2, in accordance to law, in conformit5r with principles of natural justice and pass appropriate orders, within a periocl of four (O4) weeks frorrr the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the said decision to the petitioner- Till appropriate olderts are passed by the respondent No.1 by duly considering -i NBK. J ttp 35(r l0 202.1 the stay application filed by the petitioner in Revision petition dated 30.07.2O24 preferred before respondent No.1, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the I petitioner herein in respect of petitioner's land in Sy.No.39/3 to an extent of Ac.2.39 and in Sy.No.4O/3 to an extent of Ac.1.O3 guntas situated at Yenaka Village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District. 7 . With the above observations, tlle Writ Petition is disposed of- There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT RE'ISTRAR (/ SECTION OFFICER To, \

1. The Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Dr-B.R.Ambedkar Building, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

2. The Additional Agent to the GovernmenU. Appellate Authority (P.O.l.T.D.A), Utnoor, Adilabad District. District.

3. The Special Deputy Collector, (T.W)/Primary Authority, Utnoor, Adilabad 4 One CC to SRl. KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR TRIBAL WELFARE ,High Court for the State of 6. One CC to SRl. GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] BM d GJP , HIGH COURT DATED:2810712025 ORDER WP.No.35610 of 2024 .1' --i I- a $j ,,,t:i M v , r) Fs' '\rc! r(c L) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ ,{