Hyderabad: Justice J Sreenivasa Rao of the Telangana High Court ruled that a tahsildar does not have the power to review and pass an order for the resumption of land. The judge allowed the writ plea filed by one Janakamma challenging an order of the revenue divisional officer (RDO) who confirmed the order of a tahsildar for eviction and resumption of the petitioner’s land of five acres in Nalgonda district under the the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prevention of Transfer) Act, 1977. According to the petitioner, her brother purchased the land and gifted it to her as ‘pasupu kumkuma.’ Earlier, proceedings were initiated by the mandal revenue officer (MRO) stating the original assignees had violated patta conditions in alienating the property. After a detailed enquiry, the MRO dropped the proceedings in 1999. In 2008, the tahsildar passed an order resuming the land and it was confirmed in appeal by the RDO. The judge noted: “It is relevant to mention here that after a lapse of nearly nine years, the tahsildar initiated proceedings on the very same grounds and passed resumption order dated 09.06.2008, even without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioner. Unless and until the said resumption order was modified or reviewed or set aside by the appellate authority, the tahsildar is not having any jurisdiction or authority to initiate proceedings afresh on the very same grounds. Hence, the order passed by the tahsildar is without jurisdiction and operates the principle of res judicata”. Justice Sreenivas Rao also faulted the RDO stating that the petitioner had filed an appeal before him by raising several grounds but the official without considering the same dismissed the appeal and passed a cryptic order. The judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of the revenue authorities.
Colleges challenge state’s fee ceiling
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a bunch of writ pleas challenging online admission process with regard to undergraduate courses and fixing fees in certain educational institutions. The management of Aurora Educational Society and other colleges were up in arms, questioning the power of the state government in what they alleged was usurpation of power to effect admissions to private colleges. Tarun G. Reddy counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that this attempt by the government to supervise admissions to all degree courses had been interdicted for seven consecutive years. The government instead of having the issued settled yet again proceeded to issue to the notification under challenge. On merits, Tarun G. Reddy argued, the apex court had clarified that they were no regulations empowering such centralised admission to schools and colleges.
