Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Bandi Nagaraju vs Mandal Revenue Officer Garladinne ... on 13 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)ALD621, 1999(1)ALT535
Author: Bilal Nazki
Bench: Bilal Nazki
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner stales that he was a landless poor person and was eligible for assignment of land. In the year 1979 he submitted an application to the then Tahsildar for assignment of a suitable land. He further states that after conducting a detailed enquiry in the village and after following the procedure prescribed by law, through proceedings DAR Dis.No.202/89(K), dated 6-11-1979, land to an extent of 1.39 Acres in Survey No.276-2 was assigned to him. He took the possession and is enjoying the possession of the land. He submits that, there is a private tank situated adjacent to his land in Survey No.275 which has been recognised by the Collector as such by proceedings dated 8-10-1937. The 5th respondent has some wet land in Survey No.386. In order to get his land irrigated the 5th respondent encroached upon the land to an extent of 50 cents belonging to the petitioner and only 89 cents were left for cultivation to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner brought the matter to the notice of the authorities. He further states that his representations were pending before the authorities when the 5th respondent moved an application to the 3rd respondent taking objection to the assignment of land to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent referred the matter to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent after conducting personal inspection of the land issued a notice to respondent No.5 proposing to conduct an enquiry on 7th August, 1989. Thereafter the first respondent submitted his report to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent without deciding the matter on merits disposed of the matter holding that an appeal should have been preferred before the 2nd respondent instead of straightaway approaching him. He passed this order on 22-10-1990 in which he states:
"However, the appellant could have gone an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur or Mandal Revenue Officer straight before approaching this Court. Appeal is not all required. Hence, it is dismissed.
The petitioner is directed to file this petition before an appropriate authority. All interim orders issued already are withdrawn."
2. It appears that, thereafter an appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer who is second respondent. This appeal was entertained obviously after the order passed by 3rd respondent on 22-10-1990 as the appellate authority's order does not disclose the date on which the appeal was presented. In this appeal, the respondent who is present petitioner specifically raised plea of limitation and submitted that the appeal was not at all maintainable as it was hit by limitation. The patta had been granted to the petitioner on 6-11-1979 and the first application made by the 5th respondent showing grievance against the patta was 20-7-1989 and formal appeal was filed some time after 22-10-1990. So, there was delay of more than a decade. Although the appellate authority in its order states that, "the respondent has filed counter through advocate stating that the appeal is time barred and that the assignment cannot be questioned after a long time", yet he has not dealt with this objection in his order. It is also disclosed from this appeal that respondent No.5 had only challenged the patta to the extent of 0.50 cents and he wanted cancellation of patta to the extent of 0.50 cents of land. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, without giving any finding as regards the limitation, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the following order:
"In view of the abovementioned circumstances, the assignment made to the respondent should be cancelled and re-assignment has to be made in favour of the respondent to an extent of 1.09 acres only by sub-dividing an extent of 0.30 cents covered by kunta bund and the water course of surplus water. The Mandal Revenue Officer is directed to send proposals for cancellation of assignment made in DAR Dis.No.20/ 89(K) dated 6-11-1979 to the Collector as the Collector is the competent authority to cancel assignment beyond one year. He is also directed to send the assignment proposal to the Collector for an extent of 0.30 cents in which the tank bund is existing in favour of Sri. V. Ramappa on market value as the appellant is not a landless poor person so that this proposition may be a permanent solution for this dispute. Accordingly the case is disposed of."
3. It appears that respondent No.5 was not aggrieved of the order passed by the appellate authority. He only wanted cancellation of patta to the extent of 50 cents.
The appellate authority cancelled patta to the extent of 30 cents and directed that land to the extent of 1.09 cents be re-assigned to the Writ petitioner. The Writ petitioner was aggrieved of the order as patta for the land to an extent of 30 cents in his favour had been cancelled. Therefore, he filed a revision petition before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector found that the original assignment was irregular and had been made to an ineligible person on his misrepresentation of facts. Therefore, he ordered that the assignment to the extent of 1.39 Acres of land granted in favour of the Writ petitioner on 6-11-1979 be cancelled. A revision was again taken before the Special Commissioner, Land Revenue being respondent No.4. He upheld the order passed by the Joint Collector and also made certain strictures against the Writ petitioner.
4. Now, this case reveals a succession of errors committed by the authorities concerned. Appeal for cancellation of patta was filed after ten years of assignment. Objections were taken with regard to limitation but was not decided by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer did not cancel the patta for the whole assigned land because no appeal was made at all against the total land assigned in favour of the Writ petitioner. But, the first revisional authority i.e., Joint Collector went ahead by cancelling patta for the entire land. The appellate authority's order appears to be bad as the assignment to an extent of 0.30 acres was cancelled after ten years of assignment without considering the question of limitation. The revisional authority's order is bad on the ground that the assignment with respect to the whole of the land was cancelled even without a notice to the Writ petitioner. The Writ petitioner had filed the revision challenging the order by which assignment to the extent of 30 cents had been ordered to be cancelled. Normally the Writ petitioner would have expected that either his revision will be accepted and the order under revision would be set aside, or, the order under revision would be upheld. It would not have been in his imagination that the revisional authority will cancel the assignment for the whole of the land. During these proceedings it may not be necessary for this Court to decide whether the revisional authority could pass an order against the petitioner before him, but this Court certainly feels that even if the revisional authority had come to a conclusion that the assignment with respect to the whole of the land had to be quashed, the authority should have given a fair chance to the Writ petitioner to explain as to why the assignment for the whole of the land be not cancelled. The cancellation of assignment for whole of the land without anybody showing a grievance against such assignment that too without informing the petitioner, in my view, is clearly violative of Rules of natural justice. Therefore, the order is arbitrary, against the rules of natural justice and illegal and has to be quashed.
5. Since the orders of appellate authority and the revisional authority cannot stand, therefore, in my view further orders passed by the Special Commissioner i.e., respondent No.4 also cannot stand.
6. Hence, the impugned orders are quashed and the Writ petition is allowed. No costs.
7. The Special Commissioner, Land Revenue who is respondent No.4 passed certain uncharitable remarks against the Writ petitioner in the order he has passed, therefore this Court had directed the Special Commissioner by order dated 11-9-1998 to file and affidavit. He has filed an affidavit. I have perused the affidavit. Let the quasi-judicial authorities note that, while disposing of the matters they should restrain themselves from using uncharitable language with regard to persons particularly when there is no material to substantiate such remarks.