Telangana High Court
Smt. Maheshwaram Sarojanamma vs The State Of Telangana And 7 Others on 12 August, 2021
Author: P.Naveen Rao
Bench: P.Naveen Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.18146 of 2021
Date:12.08.2021
Between:
Smt. Maheshwaram Sarojanamma,
W/o. Late Maheshwaram Chinna Veera
Reddy, Aged about 75 years, Occ: Household
And Agriculture, R/o. Parsai Village,
Jajireddigudem Mandal, Suryapet District .. Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana, rep., by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
The Court made the following:
-2-
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.18146 of 2021
ORDER:
The prayer sought in the writ petition reads as under:
"... to issue a writ, order or orders mare particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus holding the inaction of the 2nd respondent Special Tribunal, in neither giving case number nor giving any hearing to the appeal filed by the petitioner herein for not changing the mutation in petitioner's name and her legal heirs for Ac.1.30 guntas (south side canal) in Sy.No.375 and Ac.0.22 guntas in Sy.No.380 and 381 (north side SSP canal) situated in Jajireddigudm Revenue Village, Jajireddigudem Mandal, Suryapet District and cancellation of names of respondent Nos.6 to 8 and of the same before 2nd respondent Special Tribunal for ROR cases on 02.07.2021 as per Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (herein after referred to as Act of 2020) as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of petitioner's rights under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India as well as Section 16 of the Act 2020 and CCLA's Circular No.1 of 2021 dated 15.01.2021 and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent Special Tribunal to number the Appeal of the petitioner herein dated 02.07.2021 and expeditiously here the Appeal in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue for respondents 1 to 5.
3. This writ petition is filed contending that even though petitioner preferred appeal to the Special Tribunal constituted under Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (the Act 9 of 2020), so far the Special Tribunal has not taken up the appeal, causing hardship and suffering to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted application to the Tahsildar, Jajireddigudem Mandal, Suryapet District, respondent No.5, to mutate her name in the revenue records concerning the lands situated in different survey numbers mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition by cancelling the entries already made in the revenue records in favour of respondents -3- 6 to 8. By endorsement dated 05.06.2021, the Tahsildar rejected the request of the petitioner. Against this decision of the Tahsildar, appeal was preferred by the petitioner.
4. From the provisions of the Act 9 of 2020, it is apparent that once a decision is made by the Tahsildar on an application seeking mutation or otherwise, the said decision becomes final and no remedy of appeal/revision is provided by the Act 9 of 2020. Therefore, aggrieved party may have to work out his/her remedies as available in law. Section 16 of the Act 9 of 2020 contemplates establishment of a Special Tribunal. In exercise of powers vested in Section 16 of the Act 9 of 2020, the State Government notified the Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 12.01.2021, and these Rules clearly deal with the scope and jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal and they confine the exercise of powers for consideration by the Special Tribunal only to the appeals/revisions filed under the Act 26 of 1971 and which were pending as on the date of repealing the said Act and notification of the Act 9 of 2020. Therefore, the question of preferring appeal to the Special Tribunal does not arise. Thus, the prayer in the writ petition is misconceived.
5. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out her remedies as available in law, if so advised, against the decision of the Tahsildar requesting to mutate her name in the revenue records and to delete the names of persons already mutated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date:12.08.2021 KH -4- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18146 of 2021 Date:12.08.2021 KH