High Court · 2025

SRI JUSTICE J' SREENIVAS o :49 F2 025 PPEAL NO RAO nst the order dated gh Court' B',Jliiffi ?'xfi :;ilffi l'"iiit?:""':1:L':?t:TE[?i'3';i Between: , [:ffi3i'"fi:fJiTd'":,?,#il,*o3i'-X{+F& ' [Hffi 3 luh: u', m,#gn'm];x ' rylpll ulvlu;fn'x,:*,,'fT'i,L3li ,, ^^^^ 6n vears, occ ; Agriculture, R/o' . -, ,, " 5i'i'iit " :;"' :i:::] I ?'nj.iihlE"o' *m " ^*:, Nos'3' 4 & 7 -8d'"S "fi .....APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND

1. 2 J 4 5 6 7 Kumari Pentamma, (died) Per LRs Sunkoju Manjula, W/o Srihari' aged 45 years Dantoju Madhavi, W/o Ramachary' aged 43 years Rayabandi Baskar Chary" S/o Late Rayabandi Achaiah Chary' Aged 39 Rayabandi Narasimha Chary' S/o Rayabandi Achaiah Chary' aged 39 years' All are Rl/o. 4-133, NSRN Colony' Ragannaguda Hayathnagar' Vinjapur' Ranga ReddY District' years, ....RESPONDENTSMRIT PETITIONERS State of Telangana, Rep through its Joint Collector-1 ' Ranga Reddy District' The Soecial Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer' Ranga i<|iZii EZi it oivision ai Hvderabad ' $;ffi tl":r'"1H:i;"r",xu, jfl jA% f,1illine[ u o e o m a j o r, R/o pe 'Afl sE;!?:fi fl,:3iir",.,:,.x,*il,fi ,*#j;i,€r*,"*,Aericu,,u,e : i,6 n dya r o: I.A.N 10F2 025 petition Under Sec .....RESpONDENTS/RESpoNDENTS Nos.5 & 6 "t,n" ^,^^l-'ll"']'-tl" l:^1,10,",, susPEND the operation ,,", ; ,;;;:"J j:;::ffi;:T]X,:,he circums,ances :,;:: :::*if ;J,i^,::J::;t:il:;",024 n w P N. ,,uu Counsel for Appellants : SRI BOLLU NAGARAJU Counsel for Respondent No.1 : _ Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : SRl. K. DEVENDER s,a,ed in High court mav be preased ro "r,..n writ appeal, pending disposal FS[r;:f,;,lDesponcer.r Nos.6 & 7: sRr. KArRArl MURALTDHAR REDDy G.p Counsel for Respondent No.g : _ Counsel for Respondent No.9 : SRI pUNREDDy VENKAT REDDy The Court made the following Judgment: _ I THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J'SREENIVAS RAO V/RIT LNo.490F 2 025 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Si ' Iustice J Sreeruuas Ra.o) This intra court aPPeal has been filed aggrieved by the order Single Judge in Writ by the learned whereunder the writ Petiuon tiled bY dated 09. 12 '2024 Passed Petition No 1 188 of 2009 respondent Nos l to 5 was allowed 2. Heard Sri Bollu Nagaraju' iearned counsel for the appellants' Sri K.Devender, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Sri Katram Muralidhar Reddy' learned Government PleaderforRevenueappearingonbehalfofrespondentNos.6&7. with the consent of respective parties' the wril appeal is disposed of at the sl age of admission '

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1 Facts Siving rise to filing of this writ appeal briefly stated are that the appellants are claiming that they are owners and possessors ol the agriculturc land to an extent of Ac 3 21 guntas and Ac-1-19 guntas in Sy.Nos'168 and lB2' total extent is Ac'5-00 situated al Pendyal Villagc, Maheshr'r'aram Mandal' Ranga Reddy ) F-- \ District (herr:inafter referred to as 'the subject propertr,) and the said land rvas tnam land and they are legal heirs o I inamdar namelY Kummari Anjaiah. The appellants have submitted application bel,rrc the Special Grade Deputy Collector &, Reve.ue Divisional Olfrcr:r, Ranga Reddy Dist rlct, East Division for issuance of Occupanc-y Rights Certillcate (for short'ORC). pursu:r nt to the same, respondent No.7 after following the procerlure as contemplated under the provisions of the A.P (Te.langar-ra Area) Abolition of Inzrrns Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ,rhe and A. p. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Ruies , lg| s (hereinafter relerred to as ,the Rules) passed ordc:r uide proceedings No..J /3945/O5 on 1g. ll.2oo6and issuecl ORC in their favour. Aggric.i,e cl by the said order, respondent No. 1 filed appeal before the .Joinl Coller:tor I, Ranga Reddy District and tlre said appeal ir.as disrnissed on 2T.12.2OOB. Thereupon, responcleltt No.1 hled W.P.No. 1188 of 2009. During the pendency ol_ the said writ petition, respondent No. I died and respondent Nos.2 to i) werc brought on recor<l as her legal representatives. ActJ

3.2 The learnecl tsingle Judge allowed the above sard u,rit petition by setting aside the order passed by the Joint corlector dated 27. i2.2008 as \\'illl as the Order o[ the Revenue Divisional ofhccr matter to lhe R(lvenuc dated 18.1 t 200(' and remitted the J Divisional offrcer to pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to the appellants and respondent Nos 2 to 5 including personal hearing' within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order' Thus' the appellanls have filed the Present writ aPPeal' 4. Submissions oflearned counsel for the appellants: Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Nos.1 to 5 are not having any right over the subject The Revenue Divisional Ofhcer after following the Cue d under the provisions of the Act and 18.1 1 .2006 and issued ORC in favour of Rule s, Passed order dated the appellants and the respondent Nos l to 5 have not submitled objections before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the said order was conlrrmed by the Joint Collector dated 27 '12'2OO8' procedure as contemPlate resPondent proPertY

4.1

4.2 He further submitted that the appellants were in possession oi the subject property and their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were In such circumstances, thc learned Single dismissed the r't'rit petr tion liled by the issued in thcir favour. Judge ought to have respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 4 \-=_ S. Submissions of learned counsel fo --'ssr ror respondents: for respondent No

5. 1 I_earned counsFl F^_ the e61,s.r. Divisi herd rha r (ummar:::, :,:*. in possessron o"'u'"n and parushara i., r,i" p.o"..'ar-: -::T" ;T: lu were found to be u,.,0 I " pation of the subiec Divisional o'n*t *"nt"l,::"":-;::r- tt"ooto"'t No l' passed the order dated sucd ORC in rheir f uuor.. Admittedry, the samr:, the Reven and opporrunit' to IB. I r.200(r ancr ,, responde.t \os. l to 5 are also entitred properry Trre Joint coilector without ."r",0"1*_ _: appeal simpll. clismissed the appeal on 22.12.2OO8. 5.2 He further submitred rhat the learned Single Judge has rightly set asicie the orders passed by the Joint Cojlector as we as the order ol'ti,r: Revenue Divisional Officer and remitted Lhe matter back to the Revenuc Divisional Olficer for conducting fresh cnquiry and to p?sS ,116161s. The appellants are entitled to raise all the objections before the Revenue Divisional Officer and there are no grounds in lhe ivrit appeal. *. subjecr errng the grounds of Analysis:

6. We havc considered the rival subrnissions rnerd,: bv the maLerial available on r-e cord respective paltl(lS'and perused the 5

18.1 1.2OO6 and is not in disPute that basrng on the apPiication apPellants, the submitted bY the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer Passed order dated issue d oRc in their favour' It is perdnent to Divisional Officer whiie observing that men tion that the Revenue were found to be tn Kumman Anjaiah and Parusharamulu possesslon and occupation of the subject land as on crucial date O 1 . 1 1- 1973 for issuance of ORC' However, the Revenue Divisionai off-rcer without issuing any notice to the respondent No.1 who is claiming as the successor of late Parusharamulu, Passed order daled 18. I l.2006 and issued ORC in their favour and the same IS gross violation of principles of natural justice ' 7 It is trite 1aw that no order adverse to a party should be passed without hearing them' The Hon'ble Apex Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl' Member Board of Revenuel' relied upon the judgment in King v. London County Council [( 193 1) 2 KB 2t5, 2431 held as lollows: "Wherever anybody of persons (1) having Iegal authority (2) to determine questions affecting rights of subjects ard (3) having the duty to act judicially (4) act in excess o[ their legal authority - a writ of certiorari may issue. It wiII be seen from the ingredients ofjudicial act that there must be a dut5r to act judicially. A tribunal, therefore, exercising a judicial or quasi judicial act cannot decide AIR t96.1 SC 786 6 1

8. "r,n..r,r""" ":.T,,1"o wlthout giving him a hearins or his case in the manr ;;"'":;"*"; "orlu*'oe ft.rr it, principies of na.rural order made without hearing be void As a writ of certiorar; wirl record of proceedings ofa'. infrrrior judicial or quasi-judiciaJ that the High courr in u., judicialry in agarnst the rights ofa an opportunif ," ;";:^"'* to raw rl'rhe o;.",";;;"'":"t thcre trrder 0. r", o.lf.l.particutar iustice dr-.mano ,,. the affect,:d ,".,,"1 ,^11L,]uch be grarte<r ,; .";.;.;"' tribunal .. acts, ex rl,pothesis ,, ,lll"'"* exercising its jurisdictiofullows disposing "r,n";;;;; It is a.lso r:leva to place on record that in AIIwyn Housing corony welfare .asso ciation vs. Government of Andhra pradesh and others2, thr: Hon,ble Apex Court specificaily held t hat, no adverse order should be passed against the party without hearing him. In the case on hand, the specific claim of respondent No.1 is that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not issued any notice and opportunity beforc passing the order in favour of the appellants. 9. For the fort:going reasons and in view of the principk:s laid down in the abovc said dccisions, this Court does not find any ground to difler u r r h I he vieu, raken b1. the lcarned Single Judge. However, Lhe partie:; are directed to maintain ,stotus quo, in respect of the subject prop,:11y till the disposat of the proceedings by rhe Revenue Divisional Ofhcer. lt is made clear that this Court tras not r 2009 (9) SCC '+89 7 expressed any opinion on the merits of the case in respect of the subject property.

9. With the above said modifications, the writ appeal disposed of. No order as to costs. IS Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPYII SD/.T. KRISHNA KUMAR REGISTRAR DEP S CTION OFFICER Reddy Easl Division at Hyderabad. 1 The Joint Collector-.1 , State of Telangana at Ranga Reddy District. . 2 Ih? Speciar Grade Deputy corector"ano nevenu-e Divisionar oni."i, nrng" 3. Two CC's to G.p FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to SRt BOLLU NAGARAJU, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to SRI PUNREDDY VENKAT REDby, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI K. DEVENDER , Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. (OUT) To SA BS t o THt sl. ( r4 L 1 B F::B 2025 'a \ s'. jt),i r,t. .a' , HIGH COURT DATED:0 810112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.49 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS.