SURENDER & ORS. versus GADDA BALAIAH & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 803 · Decided: 07-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR, T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 803 
SURENDER & ORS. 
v. 
GADDA BALAIAH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3054 of 2006) 
DECEMBER 7, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Land Laws and Agricultura(Tenancy: 
A 
8 
Dispute as regards occupancy right of protected tenants C 
- Order of single Judge of High Court passed in revision 
petitions challenged before Supreme Court - HELD: Order 
of single Judge of High Court set aside - Matter remitted to 
High Court for decision on the questions formulated by 
Supreme Gourt with the consensus of the parties - Though 
the revision petitions were decided by single Judge of the 
D 
High Court, keeping in view the importance of the i$!5ues and 
the far reaching implications the same have for .the parties, 
the revision petitions should be heard by a Division Bench 
to be constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court -
Practice and Procedure. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3054 of 2006. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 07.10.2005 of the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition 
F 
No. 6708 of 2003. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 4111, 4105 of 2006, 2578, 10330, 10331, 10332, 
10334, 10333 of 2010, Con mt. Pet. (C) No. 335 of 2009 in C.A. 
G 
No. 2578 of 2010, C.A. Nos. 10335, 10336-10337, 10338, 
10339 & 10340 of 2010. 
I. Venkatanarayana, P.P. Rao, Vishwanatha Shetty, A. 
Rajan, A. Ramesh, P. Promila, Madhavi, Neelam Jain, C.K. 
803 
H 
804 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Sucharita, Nirada Das, Promila, Hanumantha Rao, S. Udaya 
Kumar Sagar, Bina Madavan (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.), Sridhar 
Potaraju, D. Julius Riamei, Gaichang, A. Ramesh, Madhvi, 
A.D.N. Rao, Chava Sadri Nath Babu, C. Durga Prasad, Nalini 
Mishra, R.P. Goyal, T.N. Rao, S. Thananjayan, G. Ramakrishna 
B Prasad, 8. Suyodhan, Bharat J. Joshi, Tatini Basu, D. Rama 
Krishna Reddy, T. Anamika, D. Bharati Reddy, Rameshwar 
Prasad Goyal, John Mathew, Guntur Prabhakar, T.V. George, 
Sridhar, Potaraju, G.V.R. Chdudhary, K. Shivraj Choudhari, A. 
Chandra Shekhar, P. Venkat Reddy, 8. Rama Reddy, Anil 
C Kumar Tandale for the appearing parties. 
D 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 7th 
October, 2005 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh dismissing Civil Revision Petition No.1200/ 
2003 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh while allowing Civil 
Revision Petition No.6708 of 2003 filed by the respondents, 
E Gadda Balaiah & Ors. The High Court has in the process set 
aside order dated 9th December, 2003 passed by the Joint 
Collector, Ranga Reddy District and restored that dated 28th 
April, 2001 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (''RDO" 
for short), Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 
F 
3. The facts giving rise to the revision petitions filed before 
the High Court have been set out in the order passed by the 
High Court and those passed by the RDO and the Joint 
Collector, District, Ranga Reddy. It is, therefore, unnecessary 
for us to repeat the same over and again especially because 
G there are numerous areas in which the factual assertions made 
by one party are stoutly disputed by the other. The need for a 
full fledged factual narration is rendered unnecessary also 
because learned counsel for the parties are agreeable to the 
impugned order being set aside and the matter being remitted 
H 
SURENDER & ORS. v. GADDA BALAIAH & ORS. 
805 
back to the High Court for a fresh hearing and disposal in 
A 
accordance with law. The fact that such an agreement emerged 
only after the matter had been argued at considerable length 
underscores the significance of the issues that need to be 
addressed for a proper disposal of the controversy but have 
not been so addressed by the High Court in the order 
B 
impugned. 
4. Learryed counsel for the parties submitted that lest the 
matters that need to be kept in focus are neglected at the 
hearing before the High Court it would be proper if specific 
questions that arise for consideration are formulated to enable 
C 
the parties to make their submission on each one of those 
questions and also to enable the High Court to answer the same 
while disposing of the matter afresh. We had, with that object 
in view, adjourned the matter to enable the parties to formulate 
the questions that according to them fall for determination by 
D · 
the High Court. In response several questions have been 
suggested to us on either 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.