THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. No. 5513 of 2012 Date of Judgment: 21.4.2014 Between:
K. Prasada Rao …Petitioner And The Government of A.P. and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 5513 of 2012 ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition questions the show cause notice, dated 2.2.2012 issued by the first respondent proposing to cancel the proceedings of conversion of land, dated 15.11.2011 issued by second respondent in favour of petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner questions the aforesaid show cause notice by specifically raising a contention that under Section 8 of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short “the Act”) only an appeal can be filed before the District Collector against the orders of conversion of land, but the District Collector has no suo motu power to issue the impugned show cause notice proposing to cancel the conversion order.
Though counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of the State as well as contesting 3rd respondent, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not specifically controverted. A look at the provisions of the Act show that under Section 5 of the Act the Revenue Divisional Officer or any officer to be notified by the Government in this behalf shall be competent to pass an order of conversion. Section 8 of the Act further provides that any person aggrieved by an order of Revenue Divisional Officer may file an appeal before the Collector within sixty days of receipt of such order. Obviously therefore, under the Act there is no such provision authorizing the District Collector to act suo motu. However, the impugned notice was issued under Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules framed under the Act, which reads as under, “(iv) The Collector may suo moto or an application can call for the record, scrutinize to satisfy himself before or after the orders passed and to modify or anull any order or proceeding passed by the Competent Authority after giving notices and hearing the affected party.”
I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that power to entertain an appeal is only available to the Collector under Section 8 of the Act, but there is no suo motu power under the Act and as such in the absence of any such provision as to suo motu power under the Act, the Rules cannot enlarge the powers of the Collector and therefore, the impugned show cause notice issued by the Collector under Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules is not tenable.
In view of the aforesaid legal position, therefore, it is not necessary to dwell upon the facts of the case, as particularly the third respondent seeks an opportunity to approach the appellate authority under Section 8 of the Act so as to enable it to examine the orders of conversion and take appropriate decision in the matter.
Accordingly the impugned notice is set aside for want of jurisdiction.
The third respondent is at liberty to approach the appellate authority by way of an appeal under Section 8 of the Act against the order of conversion granted in favour of the petitioner and if such an appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the District Collector shall entertain the same without raising any objection as to limitation and decide the appeal, in accordance with law, after giving notice and hearing to all the affected parties including the petitioner.
The interim order, dated 7.2.2013 passed by this Court in vacate stay petition shall, however, operate for a period of four weeks and meanwhile the third respondent is at liberty to obtain appropriate orders from the appellate authority.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 21.4.2014 KR