Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1012 (AP)

K. Venkat Rao v. Collector, Kurnool District

2013-11-14

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 29.08.2012, of respondent No.3 in proceedings, vide Rc.B/212/2012, issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.6.70 cents in Survey No.904 of Karivemula Village, Devanakonda Mandal, Krunool District and also to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioners and disposing of the same as illegal and arbitrary. A perusal of the prayer in the Writ Petition would show that the same is in contradictory terms. On one hand, the petitioners sought for invalidation of the action of respondent No.3 in issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds to respondent No.4 and on the other, they have sought for declaration of the inaction of respondent No.2 in disposing of the appeal filed by them, against the order of respondent No.3 in issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds to respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary. In my opinion, having filed an appeal before respondent No.2 against the order of respondent No.3, issuing the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of respondent No.4, the petitioners cannot seek invalidation of the said action in the present Writ Petition. As regards the second part of the prayer, the petitioners filed a copy of letter in L.Dis.No.E2237/2012, dated 20.11.2012, of respondent No.2 addressed to respondent No.3, wherein he has requested the latter to enquire into the aspect of issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds to respondent No.4 and submit a report. The petitioners approached respondent No.2 in the latter’s capacity as the appellate authority against the action of No.3 in issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds to respondent No.4. With the decision taken by respondent No.3 for issuing the pattadar passbooks and title deeds to respondent No.4, he has become functus officio. Respondent No.2 being the appellate authority cannot call upon respondent No.3 to submit a report, as the latter is not expected to take a view different from the one which he has already taken in favour of respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 being the custodian of the record, respondent No.2 as an appellate authority can only call for the record from respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 has to apply his mind independently based on such record, without calling for any report or opinion from the lower authority whose decision is the subject matter of the appeal before him. Respondent No.3 being the custodian of the record, respondent No.2 as an appellate authority can only call for the record from respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 has to apply his mind independently based on such record, without calling for any report or opinion from the lower authority whose decision is the subject matter of the appeal before him. If the appellate or revisional authorities are guided by the opinion of the lower authorities in the appeals or the revisions arising out of the orders passed by such lower authorities, the element of objectivity and neutrality will be seriously jeopardised and the appellate and revisional authorities will be abdicating their appellate or revisional functions as there is a likelihood of their being swayed away by the opinions of the lower authorities. Therefore, the practice of the appellate or revisional authorities in calling for the reports from the lower authorities against whose decision they sit in appeal or revision needs to be discouraged, nay, discontinued. The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh is requested to examine this aspect and consider issuing a Circular to all the hierarchal authorities in the State exercising quasi judicial functions to refrain from calling for reports from the subordinate authorities while exercising their appellate or revisional powers against the orders passed or decisions taken by such subordinate functionaries. In the instant case, respondent No.2 is directed to eschew the report of respondent No.3, if any, submitted in compliance of the letter, dated 20.11.2012, addressed by him to respondent No.3 and decide the appeal on its own merits, based on the respective pleas of the parties and the record, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.40511 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.