Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 822 (AP)

Gude Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-12-16

D.RAMESH

body2020
ORDER : D. Ramesh, J. 1. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: "to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in denotifying Sy No. 823/2A to an extent of Ac 5.32 cents of P.C. Palli Village and Mandal, Prakasam District from the list of the prohibited lands under section 22-A of the Registration Act 1908 pursuant to the proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent vide proceedings D.Dis. (E9)/492/2018 dt. 30.11.2018 and to implement the orders under section 10 r/w rule 7(i) and (ii) of the AP Dotted Land Act for deleting the lands existed and that of failure of the Respondents in updation of resettlement register as contemplated under section 9 of the Act as illegal, arbitrary and discriminative and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, section 9, 10 and rule 7 of The A P Dotted Lands updation in RSR Act 2017, and Consequently direct the Respondents herein to issue order for denotifying the subject land pursuant to vide proceedings D Dis. (E9)/492/2018 dt 30.11.2018 and implement the orders under section 10 r/w rule 7(i) and (ii) of the AP Dotted Land Act for deleting the lands existed in Sy No. 823/2A to an extent of Ac 5.32 cents of P C Palli Village and Mandal, Prakasam District from the list of prohibitory lands furnished to Registration Department u/s. 22-A(1) of the Registration Act 1908 and pass such other order or orders." 2. The petitioner questioning the inaction of the respondents in denotifying Sy. No. 823/2A to an extent of Ac 5.32 cents of P.C. Palli Village & Mandal, Prakasam District from the list of the prohibited lands under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 pursuant to the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings D.Dis. The petitioner questioning the inaction of the respondents in denotifying Sy. No. 823/2A to an extent of Ac 5.32 cents of P.C. Palli Village & Mandal, Prakasam District from the list of the prohibited lands under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 pursuant to the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings D.Dis. (E9)/492/2018 dated 30.11.2018 and to implement the orders under Section 10 read with Rule 7(i) & (ii) of the A.P. Dotted Lands (Updation in Resettlement Register) Act, 2017 (for short "the Act"), for deleting the lands existed and that of failure of the respondents in updation of resettlement register as contemplated under Section 9 of the Act as illegal, arbitrary and discriminative and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, section 9, 10 and Rule 7 of the A.P. Dotted Lands (updation in RSR) Act. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, he is the claimant in Claim No. APDL011700020311, dated 13.09.2017 requesting entry of his name in RSR and other Revenue Records and for deletion from the list of Prohibited properties furnished to the Registration department under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 in respect of Sy. No. 823/2A to an extent of Ac 5.32 cents of P.C. Palli Village & Mandal, Prakasam District. 4. It is contended that, following the procedure and rules laid under The A.P. Dotted Lands (updation in RSR) Act 2017 his claim was accepted by the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) constituted under Section 5 of The Act vide proceedings D.Dis. (E9)/492/2018 dated 30.11.2018. it is further contended that as per provisions of the Act under Section 10 and Rule 7(a), the District collector shall furnish the lands to the Registering officer concerned for deletion from the prohibitory lists that are already notified under Section 22-A(1) of Registration Act, 1908 within one month of the orders passed under 7 or 8 of the Act, as the case may be. 5. According to Rule 7(b) of the Act, the registering officer concerned shall delete the lands as furnished by the District Collector under Rule 7(a) from prohibitory lists under Section 22-A(1) of Registration Act, 1908. 6. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent has addressed a letter on 06.03.2020 to the 2nd respondent recommending to delete the Sy. 5. According to Rule 7(b) of the Act, the registering officer concerned shall delete the lands as furnished by the District Collector under Rule 7(a) from prohibitory lists under Section 22-A(1) of Registration Act, 1908. 6. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent has addressed a letter on 06.03.2020 to the 2nd respondent recommending to delete the Sy. No. 823/2A to an extent of Ac 11.49 cents of P.C. Palli Village & Mandal, Prakasam District from prohibitory lists under Section 22-A(1)(e) of Registration Act, 1908. Despite the order of recommending for deletion of the property list, no order has been passed for deletion of the subject land from the prohibitory lists under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similar matter in W.P. No. 10920 of 2019, this Court passed orders directing the 3rd respondent to implement the proceedings issued by him and thus G.O.Ms. No. 186, dated 23.06.2020 was issued by the 1st respondent herein and got implemented and consequently the subject case property in W.P. No. 10920 of 2019 was deleted from prohibitory lists under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. 8. Learned counsel further submits that in similar matters in W.P. No. 18289 of 2020, W.P. No. 17924 of 2020 and W.P. No. 18456 of 2020, this Court allowed the writ petitions directing the 1st respondent to de-notify the subject land and implement the orders issued under Section 10 read with Rule 7(i) & (ii) of the A.P. Dotted Land Act for deleting the lands existed from the list of prohibitory lands furnished to Registration Department under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act 1908 within one month from the date of orders passed. Therefore, in similar circumstances, requested to issue a direction as stated above. 9. The respondents did not file any counter. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue requested to pass appropriate orders for implementation of the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent. 10. During hearing, Sri G. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to implement the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent, as failure to implement the order would amount to failure to discharge public duty being a public officer and that, this Court can exercise such power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue requested to issue appropriate direction, considering the facts and circumstance of the case. 12. As seen from the material on record, recommendation was made by the 3rd respondent, being the Chairman of District Level Scrutiny Committee on 06.03.2020 to the 2nd respondent for deletion of the property from prohibitory list published under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, the 2nd respondent alone is the competent authority to delete the property and pass appropriate order for deletion from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act. But, so far, no steps have been taken by the 2nd respondent to implement the order and issue appropriate government order, deleting the land from the prohibitory list. Certainly, the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent would amount to failure to discharge his public duty, being a public officer. In such case, this Court can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a direction to the 2nd respondent for implementation of the recommendation of the 3rd respondent. 13. A Good Governance is the constitutional mandate. Good governance is associated with efficient and effective administration in a democratic framework. It is considered as citizen-friendly, citizen caring and responsive administration. In general, good governance is perceived as a normative principle of administrative law, which obliges the State to perform its functions in a manner that promotes the values of efficiency, non-corruptibility, and responsiveness to civil society. 14. Good governance is a fundamental right of a citizen and democracy. Such governance includes factors such as transparency and accountability. It also includes values such as justice and equity. It must ensure that the citizens, especially the poorest, basic needs are met and they have a life with dignity. Good governance implies an administration that is sensitive and responsive to the needs of the people and is effective in coping with emerging challenges in society by framing and implementing appropriate laws and measures. It includes strict rules of accountability. It could be centered on community groups or individuals and based on a notion of rights as inherently comprising duties. Rulers must be strictly bound by generally accepted norms and controlled by institutions to enforce those. Good governance must be made a fundamental right and justiciable there was no scope for corruption within the Constitutional framework as well as outside it. Rulers must be strictly bound by generally accepted norms and controlled by institutions to enforce those. Good governance must be made a fundamental right and justiciable there was no scope for corruption within the Constitutional framework as well as outside it. Therefore, good governance must be made a fundamental right under the Constitution. 15. The 3rd respondent ought to have realized the importance of duty being public officer. Delay, if any caused, would drive the parties to the Courts which would result in piling up of work in High Court. If the 3rd respondent discharged his duty strictly adhering to the Business Rules of the office, there would not be any such delay and question of driving the claimants to the Court does not arise. The first respondent is the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh. He being the head of Revenue Department, is bound to implement the recommendations. When the respondents caused substantial delay, the petitioner has no option, except to approach this Court questioning the inaction which amounts to invidious discrimination of the petitioner's case for communication and implementation of the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent, it leads to bad governance giving scope for corruption. The Principal Secretary being the hierarchical head of Revenue Department is having control over the officers in the Revenue Department. Hence, the respondents are directed to de-notify the subject land of the petitioner pursuant to proceedings D.Dis. (E9)/492/2018 dated 30.11.2018; and the letter communicated by the 3rd respondent on 06.03.2020 and implement the orders under Section 10 of the Act read with Rule 7(i) and (ii) of the Rules, for deleting the lands existed in Sy. No. 823/2A to an extent of Ac. 11.49 cents of P.C. Palli Village & Mandal, Prakasam District, from the list of prohibitory lands furnished to Registration Department under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act 1908, within one month from today. 16. In the result, writ petition is allowed, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to de-notify the subject land of the petitioner in pursuant to proceedings D.Dis. (E9)/492/2018 dated 30.11.2018; and to implement the orders under Section 10 of the Act read with Rule 7(i) and (ii) of the Rules, for deleting the lands existed in Sy. No. 823/2A to an extent of Ac. (E9)/492/2018 dated 30.11.2018; and to implement the orders under Section 10 of the Act read with Rule 7(i) and (ii) of the Rules, for deleting the lands existed in Sy. No. 823/2A to an extent of Ac. 11.49 cents of P.C. Palli Village & Mandal, Prakasam District, from the list of prohibitory lands furnished to Registration Department under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act 1908, within one month from today. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.