Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Nagalakkagari Venkain Sinbbamma, vs The Joint Collector, on 7 March, 2024
1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
****
WRIT PETITION No.11029 OF 2013
Between:
Smt N. Venkata Subbamma
.....Petitioner.
AND
The Joint collector, Y.S.R Kadapa District and others
.....Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 07.03.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No
fair copy of the Judgment?
_________________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
+ W.P.No.11029 OF 2013
% 07.03.2024
Between:
# Smt N. Venkata Subbamma
........Petitioner.
And
$ The Joint collector, Y.S.R Kadapa District and others
.....Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri.
^ Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader for
Revenue.
< Gist :
> Head Note:
? Cases Referred:
1
2007(1) ALD 500
2 (2009) 1 ALD 248
3
(1994) 1 SCC 1
4
(2005) 7 SCC 605
5
(2005) 6 SCC 149
6
1984 Supp SCC 128
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.11029 OF 2013
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri B. Abhay Jain, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents 1 to 3.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the orders in Reference LRDT/1600/2009, dated 01.02.2010, passed by the respondent No.2 and the consequential orders in D.Dis.(E.3)/958/2010, dated 20.03.2013, passed by the respondent No.1-Joint Collector under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short "the Act, 1971") read with the A.P. Rights in Pattadar and Pass Book Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules, 1989").
3. The petitioner‟s case is that she being landless poor, on her application, was granted the land in an extent of Ac.4.51 cents in Sy.No.542/1 of Tippaiahpalli Village, Pullampet Mandal, Y.S.R. District by way of allotment in the year 1980. The revenue records were also mutated in her name and 4 pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in the year 1995. The 4th respondent viz., Marripalli Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Venkata Ramaiah filed some complaint inter alia on the allegations that the subject land was assigned in her favour through D.K.T. Patta No.2823/70 dated 10.06.1970 and the pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued mistakenly in favour of the petitioner. The 4th respondent requested to issue pattadar pass book and the title deeds in her favour.
4. On the complaint of the 4th respondent, report from Tahsildar was called which was submitted and on perusal thereof, the Revenue Divisional Officer-2nd respondent cancelled the pattadar passbook which was in favour of the petitioner and further directed the Tahsildar to submit the proposals for grant of duplicate pattadar passbooks/title deeds in favour of the 4th respondent/the original assignee. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is dated 01.02.2010. The petitioner filed the revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. The Joint Collector set aside the proceedings of the order dated 01.02.2010 and directed the Tahsildar to resume the land and incorporate the changes in the revenue records and also to take necessary action for fresh assignment to the eligible beneficiaries as per rules in force.
5
5. The petitioner‟s revision was dismissed. However, the order dated 01.02.2010, in favour of the 4th respondent was also set aside vide order dated 20.03.2013.
6. The Joint Collector-1st respondent did not accept the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the 4th respondent which was accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer-2nd respondent directing the Tahsildar-3rd respondent to submit the proposal in favour of the 4th respondent as original assignee, was also rejected. The Joint Collector concluded that neither the appellant nor the respondents (i.e the petitioner and 4th respondent) produced any documentary evidence to show that the land in question was enjoyed by them ever before. There was no proof that the 4th respondent was the original assignee. She was also not residing in the village. The Joint Collector arrived at the conclusion, on perusal of records that, both (Petitioner and the 4th respondent) were trying to grab the Government land by misleading the revenue authorities.
7. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed.
8. The 4th respondent did not challenge the order. 6
9. The present writ petition was dismissed against the 4th respondent for default of the petitioner in complying with the court‟s order dated 11.04.2017, in terms thereof.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass order dated 01.02.2010 on the complaint of the 4th respondent. The Revenue Divisional Officer could not entertain the same as an appal against the order of assignment vide D.K.T.No.2823/70 dated 10.06.1970, as under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971 the appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of limitation of 60 days and as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 21 of the Rules, 1989. Any appeal not having been filed, there was no power with the Revenue Divisional Officer to entertain the complaint as an appeal suo motu. Consequently, the appellate order is without jurisdiction. He further submitted that the consequential revisional order of the Joint Collector, also, cannot be sustained as the appellate order itself is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the following cases to contend that the appellate authority had no suo motu appellate jurisdiction:
7
(1) Thota Narasinga Rao vs. State of A.P and others1 and (2) Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy vs. Joint Collector, Cuddapah and others2.
12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. The Revenue Divisional Officer has categorically recorded that the petitioner had no right over the land and fraudulently obtained passbook for the land which was assigned to others. The revisional authority has also categorically recorded that the 4th respondent was also not the original assignee as no documentary evidence in support of her claim was produced. He submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
14. The point for consideration is "whether the impugned orders deserve to be quashed being without jurisdiction?"
15. Section 5 of the Act, 1971 deserves reference. It reads as under:
1
2007(1) ALD 500 2 (2009) 1 ALD 248 8 "5. [Amendment and updating of Record of Rights]. -
(1) On receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination:
Provided that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf.
[Provided further that when the registration is approved by the Registering Officer, the name of the claimant shall be mutated in lieu of name of the executants on real time basis provisionally in electronically maintained data duly assigning notional subdivision number as may be prescribed pending enquiry by the Tahsildar;
Provided also that the provisional mutation shall be confirmed by the Tahsildar electronically by following due procedure under sub-section (3) within thirty days of the registration. The aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of fifteen days from the date of order of the Tahsildar and decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9 be, final.].
(2) Where the [Mandal Revenue Officer] has reason to believe that an acquisition of any right of a description to which Section 4 applies has taken place and of which an intimation has not been made to him under that Section and where he considers that an amendment has to be effected in the record of rights, the [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall carry out the said amendment in the record of rights.
(3)The [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit.
(4) Every order passed under this section shall be communicated the person concerned.
(5) Against every order of the [Mandal Revenue Officer] either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, [an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such 9 authority as may be prescribed], within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final.
[(6) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall have the power to correct clerical errors, if any, in the Pass Books.]"
16. Rule 21 of the Rules, 1989 is reproduced as under:
"21. (1) An appeal against every order of the [Mandal Revenue Officer] either making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make such amendment shall lie under sub- section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, to the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector or such authority as may be notified by the Commissioner.
(2) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be in writing and shall set forth concisely the grounds thereof within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against.
(3) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (2) above, shall bear a Court-fee stamp of rupees five only."
17. Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971 provides that against every order of the recording authority either making amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall be subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, 1971. Rule 21 of the Rules, 1989 also provides that an appeal lies against the order of the 10 Mandal Revenue Officer to the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector/Assistant Collector or such authority as may be notified by the Commissioner. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 21, provides for the procedure and the format in which the appeal is to be filed and Sub Rule (3) of Rule 21, provides for the court fee for such appeals.
18. In Thota Narasimnga Rao (supra), it was held that „suo motu‟ power is conspicuously absent in sub section (5) of Section 5 of the Act,1971 and consequently the suo motu exercise of power by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the Act, was held to be ex facie illegal.
19. Paras 9 & 10 of Thota Narasinga Rao (supra) are reproduced as under:
"9. A perusal of Section 2(10), 3, 4 and 5 of the Act would show that either at the stage of preparing record of rights u/s 3(1) of the Act or at the stage of altering record of rights as contemplated u/s 4 read with Sections 5(1)(2) and (3) of the Act, it is the MRO who has to conduct enquiry as contemplated under the Act and the Rules. When a person is aggrieved by any order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such amendment, an appeal shall lie to the RDO.
Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act further clarifies that the MRO shall have the power to correct clerical errors if any in the pattadar pass book. The order passed by the RDO u/s 5(5) of the Act is explicitly made subject to the 11 provisions of Section 9 of the Act, which confers the revisional powers on the Collector (which means Collector of a District and includes the Joint Collector). As between Sub- section (5) of Section 5 and Section 9 of the Act, there is a difference. u/s 9 of the Act, the Joint Collector can take up suo motu revision in relation to the record of rights or order, any recording authority/appellate authority to satisfy himself as to regularity, correctness, legality or propriety. This ''suo motu'' power is conspicuously absent in Sub- section (5) of Section 5 of the Act. Reading Section 5(5) and Section 9, and Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act together, it becomes clear that when once the PPB/TD is issued to the person claiming to be the owner of the agricultural land, the same can be cancelled by an appellate authority on an appeal being presented to him or by revisional authority either suo motu or on an application. The RDO has no such power though Section 5(6) of the Act confers power to the limited extent on the MRO to correct clerical errors in the pass books.
8. Therefore, there cannot be any manner of doubt that suo motu exercise of powers by the RDO would be ex facie illegal. Whether Rule 13(2) of the Rules can save the situation? In the counter affidavit filed by second respondent, it is admitted that the report sent by the MRO on the representation submitted by the fourth respondent was treated as an appeal u/s 5(5) of the Act. Without anything else, it must be held that the exercise was ex facie illegal. Rule 13(2) of the Rules also does not confer any power to cancel PPB/TD. In exercise of their general powers of supervision, MRO, RDO, Deputy Collector, DRO and the Collector of the District are conferred the power ''to test and revise the entries in the confirmed record of rights''. The term ''record of rights'' is defined u/s 2(9) as to mean ''records prepared and maintained under the provisions or for the purpose of the Act'', whereas ''title deed and pass 12 book'' means, the title deeds and pass books issued u/s 6-A of the Act. As the "title deed and pass book" do not find a mention in Rule 13(2) of the Rules, it is not possible to accept the submission that the RDO can suo motu cancel the PPB/TD."
20. In Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy (supra) it was held that against the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, a statutory appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971, within the time limit or a civil suit under Section 8(2) of the Act before the competent civil court should have been filed and as no such recourse was taken, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to entertain the petition which was not in the form of appeal, as he had no power akin to the power under Section 9 of the Act, 1971.
21. Paras 4 and 5 of Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy (supra) are reproduced as under:
"4. Initially, the matter came up for preliminary hearing on 07.08.2006. As the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) wanted to get instructions, time was granted and the impugned order was suspended.
5. The fourth respondent filed W.V.M.P. No. 2032 of 2006 along with counter affidavit through his GPA, G.S.Srinivasa Raju. It is the case of the fourth respondent that the land originally belonged to grandfather of fourth respondent, namely, late Thota Satyanarayana and the writ petitioner is one of his three brothers. The fourth respondent 13 is grand nephew of the petitioner. The father of fourth respondent was only son of Thota Satyanarayana, he is alone entitled to succeed to the property. When the petitioner obtained PPB/TD, during the Spandana programme the fourth respondent submitted a representation to third respondent for cancellation of the same. Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) has such power under Rule 13 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (the Rules, for brevity). An enquiry was conducted on 25.03.2006, 01.04.2006, 10.04.2006 and 1.04.2006 but the petitioner avoided receipt of notices. The second respondent having noticed that the petitioner claimed under fraudulent unregistered settlement deed allegedly executed by late Satyanarayana and his two brothers, passed orders on 20.04.2006 cancelling PPB/TD issued to the petitioner. The fourth respondent also contends that the same is valid and the second respondent has such power under Rule 13 of the Rules."
22. There may not be any dispute on the proposition as in the aforesaid cited cases, that the power with the appellate authority under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971 read with Rule 21 of the Rules, 1989, is not akin to Section 9 of the Act, 1971, to entertain the appeal suo motu on representation/complaint made by a person, but in the view of this court that would not mean that even in the cases of fraud, as in the present case the appellate order is passed on the ground that the passbook was obtained fraudulently, the appellate authority will have no power or jurisdiction. If fraud is detected, may be on the complaint/representation of the person, made to the appellate 14 authority with respect to the Government land or the revenue records, the appellate authority cannot be expected to remain silent and not to invoke its jurisdiction against such fraudulent order or proceedings, merely because an appeal as provided under Section 5(5) of the Act or as per the procedure prescribed, has not been preferred. It is the duty of all the Government/Revenue authorities to act in the interest of the State/Government to save the Government land from being illegally, un- authorizedly or fraudulently taken away. It is not, as if, the Revenue Divisional Officer had no power or jurisdiction at all with respect to the subject land and lacked inherent jurisdiction, as such authority is vested with the power under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971.
23. In Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the fraud vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. It was held that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. The Hon‟ble Apex Court referred to the case of Lazarus Eastates Ltd. Vs. Beasley4, in which it was held that "no judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been 3 (2005) 7 SCC 605 4 (2005) 6 SCC 149 15 obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything." Paragraphs 10 to 12 and 16 of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar (supra) are as under:
"10. A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] .)
11. "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letters or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letters. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2003) 8 SCC 319] .)
12. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. [(1992) 1 SCC 534] , it was observed as follows : (SCC p. 553, para 20) 16 "Fraud" and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Camus, who exulted in his ability to, "wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares". It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary "fraud"
in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another......................."
16. Lazarus Eastates Ltd. Vs. Beasley, Lord Denning observed at QB pp. 712 and 713:
"No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything." In the same judgment Lord Parker, L.J. observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity. )p.722) These aspects were recently highlighted in State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao"
24. Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy (supra) does not appear to be a case of fraud or trying to grab the Government land by the parties to the proceedings. In the present case, the appellate authority found that the petitioner fraudulently obtained passbooks and the revisional authority also recorded that both parties were trying to grab the Government land by misleading the revenue authorities.
17
25. The appellate order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is subject to revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971.
26. The petitioner had challenged the appellate order before the revisional authority under Section 9 of the Act, 1971.
27. Section 9 of the Act, 1971, reads as under:-
"9. Revision. - The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly:
Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation."
28. In view of Section 9 of the Act, the power of revision is with the Collector. It is on an application made to him and even suo motu. This power is, to examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained, to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or 18 proceedings made in respect thereof, if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration and to pass orders accordingly. In Babulal Nagar v. Shree Synthetics Ltd5, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that when once a jurisdiction is conferred to examine the proprietary or impropriety of the order, the jurisdiction is wide. One meaning assigned to the expression „propriety‟ is justice. A jurisdiction to examine the proprietary of the order or decision carries with it, the same jurisdiction as the original authority to come to a different conclusion on the said set of facts.
29. The revisional authority, the Joint Collector, examined the record submitted by the subordinate officers and came to the conclusion that the petitioner as also respondent No.4 were trying to grab the Government land. He directed the Tahsildar to resume the land immediately and to take necessary steps for fresh assignment to the eligible beneficiaries as per the rules in force. Therefore, in the view of this court after the appellate order, the Joint Collector having exercised its revisional power, after going through the record, which power is vested with him under Section 9 of the Act, 1971, even if the petitioner‟s 5 1984 Supp SCC 128 19 argument that, there could be no suo motu exercise of appellate power on the complaint/representation, may be acceptable for the time being, in view of the exercise of revisional power by the higher competent authority in exercise of the statutory provision, any case for interference with the appellate order on the ground of challenge that, the appellate power was exercised suo motu and not on memo of appeal filed as per the statutory provisions, is not made out to invoke the extra ordinary, discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
30. In Thota Narasinga Rao (supra) the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, exercising the appellate power, suo motu, was under challenge. In that case, the revision under Section 9 of the Act was not filed. In the present case, the appellate order was subjected to the revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act and based on the record, the Joint Collector has passed the revisional order within jurisdiction.
31. In Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy (supra) the appellate authority passed the order against the petitioner therein, without notice to that petitioner. The order therein was in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is settled in law that an order having civil consequences cannot be passed 20 without complying with the principles of natural justice. The judgment in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy (supra) in respect of setting aside of the revisional order as well, is to be considered and appreciated in the light of the facts of that case that, there the appellate order, which was affirmed by the revisional authority, was passed without notice to the petitioner.
32. The petitioner herein was afforded the opportunity of hearing before the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is so evident from the order dated 01.02.2010, after the notices were issued to both the parties. The husband of the petitioner was heard. The appellate authority therefore complied with the principle of natural justice before passing the appellate order.
33. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional order passed under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 by the Joint Collector is a consequential order.
34. The expression Consequent, Consequential and Consequential Relief have been defined in the Law Lexicon P. Ramanatha Aiyar‟s 3rd Edition 2012 as under:-
Consequent: The results; logically consistent; following as a consequence. "Damage consequent upon collision, "in a Marine Policy, means damage immediately consequent upon 21 collision, or leakage caused by collision; therefore, the damage occasioned by delay in transit and by an unloading and reloading necessitated by a collision is not "consequent" upon the collision, because the collision is not the proximate cause of the damage.
Consequential: Following as a consequence. Damages following an act, but not the direct and immediate result of it.
Consequential relief: Consequential relief means a substantial and immediate remedy in accordance with the title which the court has been asked to declare. A futile and demurrable claim for injunction is excluded.
The expression "consequential relief means some relief, which would follow directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and which is not specifically provided for anywhere in the Act and cannot be claimed independently of the declaration as a substantial relief.
35. Consequence, Consequent and Consequential have been defined in Black‟s Law Dictionary 11th Edition as follows: 22
Consequence:
As a result that follows as an effect of something that came before.
Consequent: (1). Occurring as the natural result or necessary effect of a particular action, event, or situation;
following as a natural result, a necessary effect, or a logical conclusion poverty and its consequent crime rates. (2). Of, relating to, or involving correct reasoning characterized by correctness of though; logical, Russell was thoroughly consequent in his analysis.
Consequential:
(1) Having great importance, significant consequential election.
(2) Flowing from a cause resulting from a particular event or situation consequential damages.
36. In Cambridge Dictionary „Consequential‟ has been defined as happening as a result of something.
37. From the aforesaid definition of the Expression, „consequence‟, „Consequential‟ and „Consequent‟, it clearly follows that consequential order is that, which is the result of 23 or that follows as an effect of some order that came before. In other words, an order to become consequential order has to be the natural result or necessary effect of the order of which it is said to be consequential order. Consequential order would be an order which flows necessarily, naturally, directly from a decision or judgment delivered by a Court in a cause or matter. It simply means and refers to an order which follows automatically or as a necessary consequence as a result of another order. Consequential order only gives effect to the decision or judgment of the court. Such earlier order or judgment can be called as the main order. So consequential order is appurtenant to the main or principal order.
38. Thus, considered the revisional order passed by the superior authority in exercise of the statutory power cannot be said to be an order consequential to the appellate order. The revisional order is passed independent of the appellate order. The revisional order may uphold the appellate order or it may reverse the appellate order or modify the same, but would not be as consequence of the appellate order. It would only be in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon higher authority. To exercise the revisional jurisdiction, there need not always be an appellate order. Consequential order would mean 24 an order as a consequence of the appellate order flowing there from as a result of the directions issued or as a necessary consequence. The revisional order, even if against the appellate order, would not be consequential to the appellate order.
39. The submission of the petitioner‟s counsel therefore that the revisional order is a consequential order and therefore the appellate order being without jurisdiction the revisional order as a consequential order cannot be sustained, is rejected.
40. Any illegality in the revisional order independent of such argument has not been argued.
41. Thus considered the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the petition shall stand closed.
_________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 07.03.2024 Note:
LR copy to be marked B/o.
Gk 25 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI WRIT PETITION No.11029 OF 2013 Date:07.03.2024 Gk