THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16410 OF 2002
DATED:29.06.2010 Between:
K.Ramaswamy and another .. Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16410 of 2002
ORDER:
The petitioners - father and son; assail the order of the third respondent – Commissioner of Appeals, dated 14.09.2000, confirming the order of the first respondent – Joint Collector, dated 06.05.1994, after unsuccessfully seeking a review before the third respondent.
The first petitioner was assigned lands admeasuring Ac.1.14 guntas in Survey No.325 and Acs.3.00 in Survey No.190 and the second petitioner was assigned the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 in Survey No.190 in Chandanvelli Village. In 1975, the land was assigned to the first petitioner who allegedly own Ac.0.06 guntas. The further case of the petitioners is that the second petitioner was living separately and he had nothing to do with his father. The first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 11.07.1983 to show cause as to why the assignment should not be cancelled on the ground that the petitioners obtained such assignment by misrepresentation and that they are not landless poor persons. The show cause notice also alleged that when the assignment was made, the second petitioner was a minor. The petitioners submitted explanations on 06.09.1983. Considering the explanations, the first respondent by proceedings, dated 06.05.1994, ordered cancellation as proposed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Chevella Division, and the Tahsildar, Shahbad, was requested to take appropriate action. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred an appeal to the third respondent, which as noticed supra, was dismissed on 14.09.2000. Yet again, they filed a review petition, which was also dismissed on 24.08.2001. The petitioners contend that the order of the first respondent as confirmed by the third respondent suffers from error, that the petitioners are landless poor persons, that the second petitioner was not a minor at the time of the assignment, that even if the second petitioner is a minor, assignment of such land is not prohibited and that the findings recorded by respondent Nos.1 and 3 are perverse and erroneous.
A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent opposing the Writ Petition.
This Court heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment). Both the counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Velupadas Veeraswamy v State of Andhra Pradesh[1].
In addition to the contentions raised, as noticed supra, counsel for the petitioners also submits that the competent authority to exercise revision under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (hereafter called as ‘the Revenue Act’) being the District Revenue Officer (DRO), the order passed by the Joint Collector is without jurisdiction. He relies on the decision of Veeraswamy (supra). The Assistant Government Pleader submits that whenever an assignment is claimed by fraud and misrepresentation, it is competent for the Joint Collector to cancel the assignment under Board Standing Order (BSO) 15(18) of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders. Further she submits that under the notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 22.01.1968, in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh District Collector’s Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 (hereafter called as ‘the Delegation of Powers Act’), it is competent to the Joint Collector to exercise all powers and functions under the Delegation of Powers Act. There is no dispute that as per the notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 22.01.1968, under the Delegation of Powers Act, the subject of the Revenue Act is reserved for the Joint Collector.
Therefore, even if the power is also conferred on the DRO to exercise powers under the Revenue Act, the Joint Collector is not denuded of the power. In Veeraswamy, it is noticed as under.
Initially, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 22.01.1968 and notified the same in Part I of Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 10.02.1968 delegating various powers of the District Collector under different Enactments, Rules, Regularizations and Standing Orders. Appendix-I thereto enumerates the subjects reserved for District Collectors, Joint Collectors and Personal Assistant to Collector. Appendix-II contains Notification-II (G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 22.01.1968), whereunder the Government delegated powers of the District Collector to the Joint Collector and these powers relate to the matters enumerated in List II and List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Under Notification–II thereof, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh authorized District Revenue Officers and Additional District Magistrates to exercise powers vested in the District Collectors inter alia under the Revenue Act. Items 50 to 57 in Notification-II were inserted as per G.O.Ms.No.563, dated 22.05.1985.
The plea that the power under Section 166-B of the Revenue Act ought to be exercised by the DRO alone is also misconceived. The said provision confers the power of revision on the Government or on any Revenue Officer not lower in rank to a Collector or a Settlement Commissioner. Such revisional power can also be exercised by a Revenue Officer lower in rank to a Collector. In such case, after taking a decision, he shall put up the file for the opinion of the Collector. In the scheme of revenue administration, the District Collector includes the Joint Collector on whom powers are conferred under the Delegation of Powers Act. Therefore, even if the Joint Collector exercises the jurisdiction under Section 166-B of the Revenue Act and even if the plea that exercise of power under Section 166-B of the Revenue Act is without jurisdiction, by reason of BSO 15(18), such power inheres in the Joint Collector. The plea is, therefore, without any merit.
The revisional authorities found that the petitioners are not landless poor persons and that they failed to place any material in proof of their claim that they are landless poor persons. It is also the case of the revenue officials that the second petitioner is a minor at the time of assignment and unless it is shown that the minor is capable of cultivating the land, the decision arrived at by the revisional authority under Section 166-B of the Revenue Act and subsequently the appellate authority cannot be faulted. These are all questions of fact and unless it is shown that the finding of facts is vitiated by perversity, this Court cannot interfere with the finding of facts in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit.
The Writ Petition is dismissed with costs.
(V.V.S. RAO, J) 29.06.2010
KH
[1] 2007 (1) ALD 435