IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.21557 of 2014 BETWEEN Ankamreddy Nookaraju and two others.
AND ... PETITIONERS State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. M.V. HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioners seek to question the entertainment of the appeal by the appellate authority i.e. the Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam – respondent No.3.
2. Petitioners, who claim to be owners of the land, in question, further claim that they have been granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds and that they have been in possession the land since several years. They also claim that the filed O.S.No.26 of 2013 for permanent injunction against ST people, who tried to interfere with their possession and ad interim injunction was granted in their favour by the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam. It is alleged that respondents 5 to 7 have approached the third respondent with an appeal on 06.08.2013 questioning the grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioners and seeking its cancellation. In the said appeal, notice dated 11.107.2014 was issued by the Sub-Collector informing the petitioners that the hearing is scheduled on 19.07.2014.
3. Petitioners have questioned the entertainment of the said appeal by the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that petitioners are lawful owners and possessors for several years of the land, in question, which is ancestral and zeroythi. It is also stated that respondents 5 to 7 have neither any locus nor any competence to question the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the petitioners and the said appeal came to be filed only to get over the orders of the injunction passed by the civil Court and as such, the appeal itself is sought to be declared as incompetent and liable to be rejected.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who has placed strong reliance upon a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer given to the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 16.10.2012 and according to the learned counsel, the said report supports the case of the petitioners.
5. I am unable to see any inherent lack of jurisdiction in the third respondent from entertaining the said appeal inasmuch as the appellate authority is bound to entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits. The third respondent has, however, given a notice to the petitioners for submitting their objections. Petitioners are at liberty to raise all their contentions including locus standi of the appellants before the third respondent and if any such contentions are raised, the same shall be subject to the decision of the third respondent in the appeal. Hence, in the absence of any inherent lack of jurisdiction in the third respondent, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not deserved to be invoked to interdict the statutory appeal pending before the third respondent.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, however, with a liberty to the petitioners to raise all their contentions in the said appeal before the third respondent, who shall deal with the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 1, 2014 DSK