30% OFF on all Law Courses until 10th of July. Enroll Now. Use Code: July30
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

S. SRINIVASA RAO (Retired)     17 June 2022

Admissibility of review petition in telangana high court over the order of division bench

1, Whether any provision exists in Telangana H.C. to a Div. Bench headed by CJs Order can be reviewed on the basis of an  Order upheld in the recent past by Div. Bench of a Former CJ in an identical case where the Companion Judge is the same in both the cases.     

2.  Division Bench of Telangana High Court stated in its Order dt.07.06.2022 in W.A.128/2022 that the Writ Petitioners shall  certainly be at liberty to file civil suit (?) claiming compensation or for any other relief in accordance with law. It is a strange irony that the Companion Judge is the same in both the cases but the CJ overpowered him and he will not asserted  his position and remained a mute spectator.

IN THIS CASE, WHETHER PETITIONERS CAN FILE SLP (C) IN S.C.?

S S Rao,   email: samsrirao@rediff.com      



Learning

 6 Replies

P. Venu (Advocate)     17 June 2022

Yes, a Review Petition could be filed. However, the allegations you have posted cannot be a ground for filing the RP. Moreover, it is seldom that a Review Petition is admitted.

SLP could be filed. but leave may be refused if there are no substantial questions of law.

Dr J C Vashista (Advocate)     17 June 2022

Review can be filed under Section 114 r/w Order XLVII CPC and maintainable if either of the 4 ingradient / requisites are there in the impugned order / judgment / decree.

Generally review petition is dismissed.

Move in SLP before Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Sravika Reddy Kohir   17 June 2022

Hello Srinivas Rao, I acknowledge your question. Any order can be reviewed under section 114 of CPC wherein an appeal is allowed but not preferred. But the companion judge being the same in both the cases does not in anyway shall have effect on outcome of the disputed matter as the core facts shall be differed from each case.

Moreover, a special leave petition can be filed under Article 136 for if the aggrieved party proves that there has been grave miscarriage of justice and the orders of the lower courts have not been efficient and there involves substantial question of law. You can refer to the below case law for scope of a SLP.

Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India

I hope I have answered your question.

Have a good day.

1 Like

S. SRINIVASA RAO (Retired)     18 June 2022

The one and the only argument relied upon and on which the Respondents revolved around in their entire Writ Appeal is that the Party-in-Person did not question the resumption Order [Progs.No.C/447/2002 dt.29.01.2007] and as such it has been declared as final and therefore the Writ Petition is not maintainable according to them.

The Party-in-Person came to know about resumption proceedings from the W.A.128 / 2022  only and he has absolutely no knowledge about it until then as no notice has been issued and served to him before impugned resumption order was passed and no proof to this effect was produced by the Respondents. Therefore, the procedure to be observed in this regard which is mandatory under Section 4 of the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers Act) 1977 inviting for claims has been thrown to the winds by the Respondent Authorities. It is important to know that the name of the Party-in-Person continued to be shown even now in the  Stamps & Registration of Telangana State Govt. of Survey No.44/1, Munaganoor Village, Abdullahpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District at S.No.176 as the rightful owner of Plot No.95. The resumption made Vide Order 29.01.2007 is not legally valid 23 years after registration of the Plot on 20.12.1984 of the Petitioner-in-Person.  It is very unfortunate that this most crucial and vital issue has been ignored by the Div. Bench and Writ Appeal has been allowed by it.

It is emphatically stated that no notice has been received by the Party-in-Person on the resumption of land.  If at all a notice has been issued, it ought to have been issued in Form II of Rule 3 which is mandatory soon after registration of site or within a reasonable time.  In the instant case, the Resumption Order has been issued after an inexcusable delay of 23 years after the registration of plot of the Party-in-Person which  is a mockery of justice and won’t stand for legal scrutiny as per the verdict of H.C. (Ref:-CHAVALLI ANILAJA Vs COLLECTOR, RR DIST. (2017 (3) ALD 491) & DASARI NARAYANA RAO Vs DY. COLLECTOR & MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SERILINGAMPALLI (2010(4) ALT 655.

The Division Bench headed by the Hon. CJ failed to take note of the decisive factors contained in the judgment of the Single Judge into consideration and hastily jumped into erroneous conclusion that resulted in grave injustice to the Party-in-Person. The same have been reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

Para No.18 of judgment delivered by the Single Judge in W.P.No.30687 / 2010 reads as under:-

“Registrations of these plots were taken place in the year 1984 and kept changing hands in some cases.  Settled things can’t be unsettled at this length of time where the petitioners have acquired possessory rights in respect of the plots purchased by them under registered sale deeds.  Whether the assignment of land to the assignees contained a non-alienation clause or not could not be ascertained as the original assignment patta has not been produced for perusal.  Further, the question whether assignment patta contains non-alienation is also not clear.  Though, the resumption proceedings of the land by the Government has become final, but those proceedings are not binding on the petitioners as they being registered owners of the plots in Sy.No.44/1 much prior to the resumption proceedings and stated have been in possession of the respective plots are entitled for receipt of notice in Form II of Rule 3 of the Rules which being a statutory requirement, the respondents failed to comply.”

P. Venu (Advocate)     18 June 2022

It is impossibel to form or suggest any opinion based on the above opinion. You the option to attach the Judgment to while posting in this forum.

S. SRINIVASA RAO (Retired)     18 June 2022

PDF  OF JUDGMENT DT.7-9-2021 ATTACHED FOR KIND PERUSAL


Attached File : 114655 20220618214418 206300306872010 4 2 copy.pdf downloaded: 5 times

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query