logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 TSHC 1402 print Preview print print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : C.R.P.No. 4484 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Parties : Sama Bhupal Reddy & Others Versus The Additional Collector (Revenue), Ranga Reddy District & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: V. Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Atla Abhinandhan Reddy, learned counsel. For the Respondents: -------
Date of Judgment : 12-12-2025
Head Note :-
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Protected Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973 - Rule 4 (3) -
Judgment :-

This Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 22.11.2025 passed by the respondent No.1/The Additional Collector (Revenue), Ranga Reddy District in an Appeal (Case No.F2/2025/2023) filed under Section 90 (1) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (‘the 1950 Act’).

2. The Appeal had been filed by the respondent Nos.4 to 13 herein, who were aggrieved by an order dated 25.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.3/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to order dated 18.08.2018. The respondent Nos.4 to 13 are third parties to an order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 in Case No.L/883/2017 which permitted the granting of Ownership Certificate under Section 38-E of the 1950 Act read with Rule 4 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Protected Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973 (‘the 1973 Rules’), to the father of the revision petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and to the revision petitioner No.3 herein. The said Certificate of Ownership was issued under Rule 5 (1) of the 1973 Rules by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 25.08.2018.

3. By the impugned order, the respondent No.1 set aside the 38-E Certificate issued vide order dated 25.08.2018 and remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 with a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry with regard to the ceiling aspects and other issues, if any and to pass an appropriate order.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners (respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the respondent No.1) has placed the relevant facts before the Court. The relevant facts are as follows:

               i) The respondent No.3 passed an order on 25.08.2018 pursuant to order dated 18.08.2018, granting Ownership Certificate in favour of the father of the revision petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and in favour of the revision petitioner No.3. The respondent Nos.4 to 13 (appellants before the respondent No.1) along with their family members filed an Objection Petition outlining their objections to the grant of Ownership Certificate vide order dated 25.08.2018, which was rejected by an order of the respondent No.3 contained in an Endorsement dated 23.12.2022 issued in Proceeding No.L/530/2022 which became final as the respondent Nos.4 to 13 did not challenge the said order under the provisions of the 1950 Act.

               ii) The respondent Nos.4 to 13, however, chose to file an Appeal against the order dated 25.08.2018 issued pursuant to order dated 18.08.2018 with a delay of 1698 days. The Court is informed that an I.A. for condonation of delay of 1698 days was filed in Case No.F2/2025/2023 on 19.06.2023 by the respondent Nos.4 to 13, pending before the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District at Kongara Kalan (‘Joint Collector’), which was not considered by the respondent No.1. The Court is further informed that the respondent No.4 herein chose to withdraw the Appeal by filing two Memos dated 04.07.2023 and 06.01.2024 before the Joint Collector, which were also not considered by the respondent No.1. Hence, the impugned order was admittedly pronounced without passing any orders with respect to the petition for condonation of delay of 1698 days and the Memos filed by the respondent No.4 requesting for withdrawal of the Appeal.

5. In any event, section 92 of the 1950 Act, which deals with ‘Powers exercisable on appeal or revision’ clearly confines the powers of the respondent No.1. Section 92 provides that an authority exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction under the 1950 Act shall pass such order consistent with the said Act whether by way of ‘confirmation’, ‘recession’ or ‘modification’ of the order under appeal or revision as appears to it to be just, and shall have the powers conferred on the original authority by section 89(2) of the 1950 Act.

6. In the present case, by the impugned order, the respondent No.1 remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 with a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry regarding ceiling aspects and other issues, if any and to pass an appropriate order. Hence, the impugned order and the direction contained therein of ‘remand’ is not envisaged within the power of the appellate authority exercisable under Section 92 of the 1950 Act. Apart from the statutory infraction, the fact remains that the respondent No.1 failed to condone the substantial delay of 1698 days, before passing the impugned order, despite the fact that an I.A. had been filed by the respondent Nos.4 to 13 herein seeking condonation of delay in Case No.F2/2025/2023 which was heard by the respondent No.1 and culminated in the impugned order dated 22.11.2025.

7. C.R.P.No.4484 of 2025 is accordingly allowed by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.1 on 22.11.2025. All connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal