Appeal U/S 8 Of Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion For Non-Agricultural Purpose) Act Lies Before Collector, Not RDO: High Court

The Telangana High Court has clarified that a Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) will not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 8 of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purpose) Act, 2006 (NALA).

The court held that only the District Collector or an officer not below the rank of Joint Collector has the jurisdiction to hear such appeals.

“As per Section - 8 of the NALA, appeal lies to the 'Collector'. As per Section - 2 (f) of the NALA, Collector includes 'Joint Collector or any other Officer not below the rank of the Joint Collector authorized by the Government to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the District Collector'. Likewise, Section - 2 (g) of the NALA defines 'Revenue Divisional Officer', and it means the Revenue Divisional Officer including Sub-Collector or Assistant Collector and includes any Officer not below the rank of a Revenue Divisional Officer empowered by the Government to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Revenue Divisional Officer under the NALA. In view of the same, respondent No.3, being the Revenue Divisional Officer is not a 'Collector'. He is only a Revenue Divisional Officer. Section - 2 (f) says Collector includes 'Joint Collector', but not Sub-Collector or Assistant Collector. Therefore, RDO cannot be treated as Joint Collector,” the bench of Justice K. Lakshman explained.

The bench was dealing with a Writ petition challenging the notice issued by the RDO, acting as an appellant authority under section 8 of the NALA Act.

The dispute surrounds ownership and conversion of land. The petitioner and his wife, claimed ownership of 3 acres of land in Khanapuram Village, which they claimed to have purchased back in 2004-2005. The respondents 4 to 6, children of the original owner, contested this sale and filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deeds. This suit, however, was dismissed in 2019. The respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court, which is still to be heard finally.

In 2022, the petitioners herein, applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use under NALA and received approval on October 2022. They subsequently applied for layout approval. However, this process was stopped due to ongoing legal disputes.

Respondents 4 to 6 challenged the conversion proceedings in the High Court. Initially, a status quo order was issued, which was later vacated on April 2024, with the court allowing the respondents to file a statutory appeal under NALA within 15 days.

Following this, the respondents filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under the NALA Act, who granted an interim stay on the conversion orders.

Challenging the same, petitioners approached the High Court, by way of the present writ petition.

The petitioners contended that the RDO is not the appropriate appellate authority under Section 8 of NALA and lacks the power to grant interim stays. They argued that the RDO's actions contradicted the High Court's previous order vacating the stay.

The respondents countered that the RDO is indeed the proper appellate authority and has the power to issue interim orders. They maintained that their appeal and the subsequent interim order did not violate the High Court's previous directions.

Justice Lakshman focused on interpreting Sections 2(f), 2(g), and 8 of the NALA Act to determine who could be considered the correct appellate authority. The court noted that Section 8 specifies that appeals should be filed before the "Collector." Section 2(f) defines "Collector" as the District Collector or includes a Joint Collector or any officer not below the rank of Joint Collector authorized by the government.

The court emphasized that while Section 2(g) defines "Revenue Divisional Officer" to include a Sub-Collector or Assistant Collector, it does not equate an RDO with a Collector or Joint Collector for the Act.

Thus, the Bench concluded that an RDO cannot be considered equivalent to a Collector or Joint Collector under NALA and thus did not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the notice dated June 14, 2024, issued by the RDO and the consequential interim stay on the conversion orders. However, the court granted liberty to respondents to file a fresh appeal before the District Collector within 15 days of receiving the court order.

Case no.: WRIT PETITION No.19941 OF 2024

Case Title: Mr. B. Yedukondala Raju & another vs. State of TS

Counsel for petitioners: P. Rama Sharana Sharma

Counsel for respondents: L. Ravinder, AGP. M.V. Hanumantha Rao

Click Here To Read/Download Order