Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 84 (AP)

Alavala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-01-31

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, of India is filed to issue a writ of mandamus, questioning the impugned notice in Rc. B/219/2019, dated 03.09.2019 and orders in Rc. A/219/2019, dated 23.09.2019 of Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent herein in respect of lands measuring Ac. 1.50 cents in Sy. No. 513/2, Ac. 0.50 cents in Sy. No. 513/2, Acs. 2.00 cents in Sy. No. 513/6, Ac. 1.76 cents in Sy. No. 513/7, and Ac. 0.71 cents in Sy. No. 427/4 of Reddygudem Village and Mandal, Krishna District, without following due process of law, declare the same as illegal and arbitrary, consequently set aside the impugned proceedings. 2. The petitioners herein are owners and possessors of subject lands having purchased them under registered sale deeds. Recognizing their ownership, the Tahsildar, Reddygudem Mandal issued Pattadar pass books, title deeds, 1-B register and adangals. They raised mango garden and paddy crop in the subject-matter lands. While so, the Tahsildar issued impugned notice alleging violation of provision under Section 3(2) of 1977 Act. After receiving proceedings, the petitioners approached the Tahsildar and requested to furnish a copy of deed of assignment as the proceedings issued to them, does not show that the subject lands are assigned with a condition of non-alienation. Then, the Tahsildar informed them that the land is required for allotting of house sites to the landless poor alongwith other lands in the village and they are resuming the entire assigned lands in the village. Then, the petitioners requested not to resume their lands, as they are also landless poor. The petitioners also submitted their explanations to the Tahsildar. But, the Tahsildar passed resumption orders with ante date by holding that the explanations have not been received within stipulated time. Therefore, notice itself is illegal. The petitioners also contended that no notice was served on them either in Form-I or Form-II, but third respondent passed impugned order, without following procedure prescribed under law, and requested to set aside the same. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). 4. On perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition, more particularly, Para Nos. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). 4. On perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition, more particularly, Para Nos. 3 and 4, notice in Form-I was issued to assignees through Village Revenue Officer, by calling their explanation and notice in Form-II was served on transferee of the subject land shown in schedule appended in Form-I. Thus, notice in Forms-I and II is not in compliance of Rule 3 of Rules framed under Act, 2007. According to Rule 3, notice in Forms-I and II shall be served on both transferee and transferor, if the assignee contravened, the Government proposed to resume the land for contravention of Section 3 of Act 9 of 1977. In the present facts of the case, notice was served only on assignee in Form-I and on another person in Form-II, who is not transferee. As per the sale deed, petitioner is transferee of land from original assignee. 5. In any view of the matter, when the Tahsildar failed to comply the procedure mandated under Rule 3 of Rules framed in 2007, the entire proceedings are vitiated. This issue is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Ms. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited vs. The Joint Collector, Chittoor and Another, 2017 (2) ALD 529 . 6. This Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when administrative authorities failed to follow the procedure and pass any order. The jurisdiction of this Court is though limited, circumscribed by certain limits, in West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim, 2019 (9) SCALE 573 , the Apex Court reiterated the following principles of judicial review. “It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the decision making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a fundamental right or some other legal right or the performance of some legal duty. In any case, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a fundamental right or some other legal right or the performance of some legal duty. To pass orders in a writ petition, the High Court would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the respondents of a legal duty. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan vs. Mallikarjuna, AIR 1960 SC 137 . If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of certiorari. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.” 7. When the administrative authorities failed to strictly adhere to procedure, during decision making process, this Court can exercise power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and pass appropriate order, setting aside the order passed by quasi-judicial authority or administrative authority, by applying the principles laid in West Bengal Central School Service Commission's case (supra). 8. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find, it is a fit case to set aside the order impugned in the writ petition, on the ground of violation of Rule 3 of Rules framed under Act 9 of 1977 in 2007. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, declaring impugned notice in Rc. B/219/2019, dated 03.09.2019 and orders in Rc. A/219/2019, dated 23.09.2019 issued by Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent herein, as illegal and arbitrary, consequently the same is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.