Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 26 (AP)

Allu Bhaskara Benargi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-04

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2023
ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in initiating Suo-Moto Revision vide show cause Notice CCLAs Ref.No.VI/68/2010, Dt.13.07.2010 and subsequent notices issued under Sec.14-A of A.P.(A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 for modification of the Ryotwari patta issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Parvathipuram on 06.09.1960 without having power/Jurisdiction and also in violation of order, dt.24.02.2009 in W.P.No.16002 of 2002, as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice unreasonable and violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to delete the petitioner Agricultural land to an extent of Ac.25.25 Cents of Dry land in Sy.No.191 of Salur Village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of Registration Act 1908…” 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that, the 2nd respondent in initiating suo moto revision by issuing show cause notice vide CCLA’s Ref.No.VI/68/2010, dated 13.07.2010 and subsequent notice issued under Section 14-A of the A.P. (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 for modification of ryotwari patta issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Parvathipuram on 06.09.1960, without having power/jurisdiction and also in violation of order, dated 24.02.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16002 of 2002. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The 5th respondent/Tahsildar filed counter denying the allegations inter alia contending that the 2nd respondent/Commissioner has revisional powers under Section 14-A of the A.P. (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 to entertain at any time either suo moto or an application made to it, call for and examine the records relating to any proceedings taken in this regard for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the regularity or corrections, legality or property of the proceedings and if it appears that such orders should be modified, annulled, revised etc. may pass orders accordingly. The respondents also filed W.A.No.40249 of 2011 against the orders, dated 24.02.2009 in W.P.No.16002 of 2002 and the same is pending. may pass orders accordingly. The respondents also filed W.A.No.40249 of 2011 against the orders, dated 24.02.2009 in W.P.No.16002 of 2002 and the same is pending. The 2nd respondent has revisional powers to review the decision taken by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inam) Parvathipuram, dated 16.09.1960 and the writ petitioners have right to defend their interest by appearing before the 2nd respondent. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri G.Gopala Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Parvathipuram has issued ryotwari patta on 06.09.1960 in favour of the petitioners’ father, which is placed on record and draw the attention of this Court. Pursuant to the request made for mutation of the revenue records, the Sub Collector recommended for the same vide D.Dis.No.5414/1988, dated 17.09.1988, which is also placed on record and draw the attention of this Court to the same but as the authorities have not considered, the original pattadars made a representation to the Joint Collector, wherein the Joint Collector refused for mutation of their names in the revenue records, vide endorsement, dated 18.06.2002. Aggrieved by the same, they filed W.P.No.16002 of 2002 wherein this Court, quashed the said endorsement and directed the respondents therein to implement the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioners therein, by its order dated 24.02.2009. The said order is placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the same. As the said orders have not been complied with, a contempt has been filed and thereafter, the revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbooks by duly incorporating their names. Learned counsel further submits that, the 3rd respondent/ District Collector requested the 2nd respondent/Commissioner to take up the suo moto appeal and to modify the ryotwari patta issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Parvathipuram on 06.09.1960 under Section 14-A of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956 vide Rc.No.920/2009/F2, dated 03.05.2010, which is placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the same. By virtue of the same, the 2nd respondent/Commissioner has issued show cause notice, dated 13.07.2010 for conducting enquiry and pursuant to the receipt of the said notice, they submitted their explanation and as the 2nd respondent has not conducted enquiry, the petitioners got filed W.P.No.3403 of 2017 and this Court has directed the 2nd respondent to conclude enquiry pursuant to the proceedings, dated 13.07.2010 within a period of six (06) months vide its order, dated 01.02.2017 and the said order is placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the same. Inspite of such a direction, the authorities have not conducted any enquiry, as such, questioning the action in initiating the suo moto appeal that to after five decades of issuance of ryotwari pattas on 06.09.1960, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel also further submits that, the ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the petitioners’ father in the year 1960, whereas the Section 14-A of the Inam Abolition Act was amended in the year 1976, as such, the said provision cannot be applied for the petitioners’ case and by virtue of the said issue, the revenue authorities have included the petitioners’ property in the prohibitory property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the judgments in the cases of Gajuwaka Gram Panchayat vs. Medisetti Venkata Suryanarayana and another, 1995(1) APLJ 461 and Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and another vs. D.Narasing Rao and others, (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 695 and accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reiterating the contents what has been made in the counter contended that questioning the orders, dated 24.02.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16002 of 2002, Writ Appeal (Sr) No.40249 of 2011 was filed with delay and the same was dismissed on 12.07.2022 and the said order copy has been placed on record. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that, having invited an order by the writ petitioners in W.P.No.3403 of 2017 and now cannot question the very action of the suo moto revision taken by the 2nd respondent. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that, having invited an order by the writ petitioners in W.P.No.3403 of 2017 and now cannot question the very action of the suo moto revision taken by the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that, if at all the petitioners have any grievance on facts or on law, which are raised in the present writ petition can as well be raised before the 2nd respondent and further stated that, a direction may be given to the authorities to complete enquiry by fixing a time frame and accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders in this regard. 7. A perusal of the record shows that, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) has issued ryotwari patta on 06.09.1960 and pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.No.16002 of 2002, pattadar passbook was issued by mutating the revenue records. It is also not in dispute that, the 3rd respondent/District Collector recommended the 2nd respondent/Commissioner to take up the suo moto appeal and to modify the ryotwari patta under Section 14-A of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956 vide Rc.No.920/2009/F2, dated 03.05.2010, on such, the 2nd respondent/Commissioner issued show cause notice, dated 13.07.2010 and on receipt of the same, the petitioners submitted their explanation and as the respondent authorities have not conducted enquiry, the petitioners filed W.P.No.3403 of 2017 and this Court by its order, dated 01.02.2017 directed the 2nd respondent to conclude enquiry in pursuance to the proceedings, dated 13.07.2010 within a period of six (06) months. When a notice has been issued by the authorities, the petitioners instead of questioning the same submitted explanation and when the authorities did not dispose of the same the petitioner filed writ petition seeking a direction to conclude enquiry and invited an order from this Court whereby a direction has been given. In view of the above, now the petitioner cannot question the power and jurisdiction of the authority in taking suo moto revision. In view of the above, now the petitioner cannot question the power and jurisdiction of the authority in taking suo moto revision. Hence, instead of going into the power and jurisdiction of the authority in taking up suo moto revision, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: i) The petitioner is at liberty to file additional grounds that were raised in the present writ petition including the legal grounds regarding power and jurisdiction of the authorities in taking up suo moto revision, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such submission of additional grounds by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent/Commissioner is directed to conclude the enquiry in suo moto revision vide show cause notice CCLA’s Ref.No.VI/68/2010, dated 13.07.2010 within a period of three months thereafter by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate and reasoned order as per law and communicate the same to the petitioners. It is needless to say that basing on the outcome of the suo moto revision, the revenue authorities are directed to act upon with regard to deletion of the petitioners’ agricultural land in an extent of Ac.25.25 cents of dry land in Sy.No.191 of Salur Village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District from the prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908. The authority is also directed to take due note of the fact that after implementing the ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioners whether suot moto revision can be entertained in relation to the said ryotwari patta. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.