SYED RAHEEMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to question the order of the third respondent in Proceedings No. B/1589/2014 dated 29.5.2015 wherein the mutation relating to Acs. 5.00 guntas in Sy. No. 586 of Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was ordered in favour the fourth respondent under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act (for short 'the Act'). Though the said order on the face of it is appealable under the Act, in view of the contention of the petitioner that he had no notice of passing the said order, I had heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on 24.8.2015 and after hearing the matter, the learned Government Pleader was required to get instructions. Petitioner Counsel also sought time to verify, hence, the writ petition is posted to today.

(2.) Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the petitioner had no notice of passing of the aforesaid order by the Tahsildar, he points out that the petitioner had filed implead petition opposing the request of the fourth respondent and since the Tahsildar had hurriedly reserved the matter without giving opportunity to the petitioner, he had approached the Collector by way of application dated 27.7.2015 on which the Collector had endorsed the Tahsildar to take appropriate action if found correct and re -open the hearing. Accordingly, the matter is stated to have been re -opened. However, the petitioner Counsel states that he was not aware of the same and came to know of the impugned order much later, as the order was also not marked to him."

(3.) I find difficult to accept the said contention in view of the specific para in the impugned order, which records about the presence of the petitioner, the said relevant para is extracted hereunder: