Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 291 (AP)

Ranga Ramesh v. Madugula Pattabhi (died)

2000-04-17

B.PRAKASH RAO

body2000
B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Act") against the orders dated 11-10-1999 passed by the Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District, rejecting art application purported to have been filed by the petitioners herein under Sec. 90-A (b) of the Act seeking transfer of a case from the primary authority and disposal by the appellate authority and readjudicating the orders already passed. The prayer in the petition filed before the Joint Collector, ranga Reddy District on 14-12-1994 reads as follows:"this Hon ble Court may be pleased to transfer the file No. L/2349/88 from the Office of the Revenue Divisional officer, East, to the Office of the Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District and readjudicate the file No. B4/13628/84 and B4/5588/84 in the interests of justice. " ( 2 ) SECTION 90-A (b) of the Act reads as follows:" (B) withdraw any proceeding or appeal from such officer and himself hear and decide the same or transfer it for disposal to some other officer in the district empowered in this behalf by the government". ( 3 ) THIS provision is almost in pari materin with Section 24 of the Code of Civil procedure regarding transfer of suits. Under this provision, the Collector is vested with power to transfer any proceedings on his own mutton or on an application filed by the parties. The power of transfer of proceedings is of original nature to be exercised in the exigencies. ( 4 ) THE. dispute in this case between the parties pertain to the claim of joint rights in respect of protected tenancy held in Survey nos. 181 and 196 situaed at Kuntloor village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. On the earlier occasion, the Joint collector has disposed of the appeals filed under Section 90 of the Act by orders in File no. 34/5588/84 and B4/13628/84 dated 10-2-1986 and subsequently, there was another order of the Joint Collector in File no. B4/11881/87 dated 5-1-1988 remanding the matter for re-enquiry before the primary authority viz. , the Revenue Divisional officer. As against the aforesaid orders, revisions filed, by the father of the petitioners before this Court were dismissed on merits as per the orders in c. R. P. NOS. 786,787 and 1780 of 1986 dated 30-6-1988. B4/11881/87 dated 5-1-1988 remanding the matter for re-enquiry before the primary authority viz. , the Revenue Divisional officer. As against the aforesaid orders, revisions filed, by the father of the petitioners before this Court were dismissed on merits as per the orders in c. R. P. NOS. 786,787 and 1780 of 1986 dated 30-6-1988. Subsequently, the review applications were also disposed of by this court on 7-4-1989 observing that it is open to the Revenue Divisional Officer to proceed with the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in pursuance of the orders of the Joint Collector dated 5-1-1988 without being influenced by any observations made in order dated 30-6-1988 in the revision. Thus now the matter is pending enquiry before the Revenue divisional Officer in File No. L/2349/88. ( 5 ) IT is in respect of these proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioners seek transfer and for readjudication of the orders dated 10-2-1986 in file No. B4/5588/84 and B4/13628/4. In view of the fact that the orders dated 10-2-1986 stood merged with the orders in revision, the question of reopening as such does not arise and the very request is wholly misconceived. Further, the petitioners main prayer is to transfer the case which is pending before the Revenue divisional Officer in file No. L/2349/88 and this petition was dismissed as per the orders under revision dated 11-10-1999. ( 6 ) THE power to transfer a case, is contemplated under Section 90-A (b) of the act. Any such exercise of power and the orders passed thereon pertain to original and independent jurisdiction and does not tall within the powers under Section 90 of the Act of an appellate jurisdiction. Original side jurisdiction is power conferred upon by the statute on an authority. Appellate jurisdiction is the power and authority conferred upon a superior Court or tribunal to rehear and determine causes which have been tried in the inferior Courts or Tribunals. These powers are independent of each other, though on the same authority. Admittedly, there is no appeal pending before the appellate authority and the orders passed were already confirmed in revision by this Court. Therefore, the orders under challenge are not in exercise of appellate powers. However, Section 91 of the Act provides for a revision to this Court from any "final order" passed on appeal by the Collector or Board of Revenue. Therefore, the orders under challenge are not in exercise of appellate powers. However, Section 91 of the Act provides for a revision to this Court from any "final order" passed on appeal by the Collector or Board of Revenue. Thus, for preferring a revision under Section 91 of the act, the order should be a final order on an appeal. In the hierarchy of the Tribunals, three tier proceedings are contemplated. As against the orders of the primary authority, a regular appeal is provided under Section 90 and it is only against such orders in appeal, a revision is contemplated under Section 91. Whereas the order under this revision is only an order refusing to transfer a case and re-adjudication of two other cases under Section 90-A (b) in exercise of the original jurisdiction by the collector but not as an appellate authority under Section 90 of the said Act. The very application is for transferring the case from the R. D. O. , to the appellate authority and to readjudicate the matters which were already disposed of. In Yerraboth Sathaiah vs. Edla Chaliah this Court while considering section 91 of the Act held that an order of remand is on the face of it not a final order because it did not decide the rights of the parties and, therefore, revision petitions do not lie. Of course, the question therein was of a different nature i. e. , whether an order of remand really adjudicates any rights of the parties so as to call it a final order and could be challenged in a revision under section 91 of the Act. However, in this case, as stated supra, the order which is sought to be challenged is one passed under section 90-A (b) which is of original jurisdiction but not an appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, I hold that no revision lies to this Court under Section 91 of the Act against the orders passed under section 90-A (b) of the Act. Hence the revision fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.