IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.22289 of 2014 BETWEEN Kamasani Gangi Reddy and others.
AND ... PETITIONERS The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. S.V. MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioners question the notice issued by the office of the Collector in File No.D4/3364/2014 dated 17.07.2014. The aforesaid notice was issued under purported exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the Joint Collector in view of the representation of the villagers of Nellepalle and Gangadhar, Nellore Mandal.
2. Petitioners state that they are owners of the land and that they have been granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Earlier the Revenue Divisional Officer had given a notice to the petitioners in November 2012 calling upon them to show cause as to why their pattadar passbooks and title deeds should not be cancelled.
That notice was questioned by the petitioners in WP.No.35798 of 2012 and this Court, by order dated 21.11.2012, held that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no such power and such power can only be exercised under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Joint Collector. This Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the RDO has no jurisdiction to issue such notice and consequently, the said notice was set aside. However, this Court granted specific liberty to the Joint Collector that ‘if need be’ take action in accordance with law under Section 9 of the Act.
3. The present notice, impugned, refers to representation of the villagers as well as the orders of this Court in the writ petition, referred to above and the enquiry proposed to be conducted by the Joint Collector as notified to the petitioners informing them that the enquiry now stands posted to 19.07.2013 where the petitioners may appear along with the records.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act is not suo motu by the Joint Collector as it is at the instance of the villagers. Learned counsel also submits that neither Section 9 of the Act nor the Rules framed under the Act are followed before entertaining the said revision. Learned counsel also submits that the decision of this Court in the earlier writ petition is misunderstood by the Joint Collector, as the observation was to the effect that to take action only if need arises. Various other contentions are also raised on merits regarding entitlement of petitioners. However, at this stage, the merits may not be relevant to be gone into.
5. It is evident from the order of this Court as well as the provisions of Section 9 of the Act that the Joint Collector is empowered to satisfy himself of the legality, propriety and correctness of any order passed and if the Joint Collector intends to examine the matter by exercising his powers under Section 9 of the Act, it cannot be said that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and as such, the present writ petition against the said notice does not deserve to be entertained.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the revision is now posted to 16.08.2014.
The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of permitting the petitioners to raise all their objections both factual as well as legal including those raised with reference to power under Section 9 of the Act before the said revisional authority, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties affected. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 6, 2014 DSK