Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Kurva Mallamma And Another vs Kupireddy Sasthri on 12 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(1)ALD298, 2001(1)ALT382, 2001 A I H C 1034, (2001) 1 ANDHLD 298 (2001) 1 ANDH LT 382, (2001) 1 ANDH LT 382
Author: Goda Raghuram
Bench: Goda Raghuram
ORDER
1. This revision under Section 91 of the A.P. (Telegana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the appellate order of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, dated 17-4-2000 in Appeal No.F1/1 of 2000, remanding the case to the Mandal Revenue Officer with a direction to conduct a full fledged inquiry by affording reasonable opportunity to the respective parties and pass a final order within the time stipulated.
2. The grievance of the petitioners herein had a tortuous and extended trajectory. The petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of one late Gaddam Yellaiah, who was a protected tenant. On the death of the said Yellaiah, the petitioners, claiming to be his LRs, filed an application under Section 40 of the Act for recognising them as LRs and for grant of a succession certificate. The Mandal Revenue Officer - the Competent Authority, after a process of enquiry, by the order dated 7-5-1998 allowed the application of the petitioner and granted a succession certificate. The respondent claiming title to the lands as a purchaser from the original landlord, aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 7-5-1998, preferred an appeal under Section 90 of the Act to the Joint Collector. But by the order dated 28-12-1998 the Joint Collector remanded the matter back to the Mandal Revenue Officer holding that there was no proper opportunity afforded to the appellant-respondent herein. Aggrieved by the said appellate order dated 28-12-1998, the petitioners herein preferred a revision under Section 91 of the Act to this Court in CRP 1373 of 1999. At the state of admission, this Court by the order dated 8-4-1999 dismissed the revision directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to dispose of the matter remanded to him within a period of 4 months.
3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, thereupon, on 4-11-1999 passed orders in favour of the petitioners herein reiterating his conclusions in the earlier order dated 7-5-1998 recognising them as LRs of late Yellaiah. The order of the Mandal Revenue Officer on the aspect of affording an opportunity to the respondent herein, is a under:
"3. On receipt of the records, notice to the parties was issued on 16-4-1999 fixing the date for 10-5-1999. On 10-5-1999 the petitioners appeared in person and Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate filed Vakalat on behalf of the respondent, the case was adjourned to 29-5-1999. On 29-5-1999 the said advocate filed a Memo to furnish the copy of the petition filed by the petitioners. On 28-9-1999 the copy of the petition filed by the petitioners was furnished to the respondent, and case was adjourned to 30-10-1999 finally for oral and documentary evidence if any. Notice of adjourned dated i.e., 30-10-1999 was also served on the parties.
4. Inspite of several adjournments the respondent did not file any counter to the petitioner and did not file any document and did not oppose the petition as to what are the grounds not to grant succession of PT rights in favour of the petitioners in respect of the said three Sy.Nos. As per grounds of appeal B7/19 of 1998 the respondent is the purchaser of the said lands through registered sale deed from its original pattadar. The respondent may be the purchaser of the said lands, and validity of said purchase is not in dispute in this case. On account of purchase of lands by the respondents the tenancy rights cannot be terminated or ousted, because under the staute the petitioner are LRs, entitled to become the successors of PT Rights. There is no illegality in declaring the petitioners as the LRs of original PT."
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 4-11-1999 above, the respondent herein preferred an appeal yet again to the Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Act. By the order dated 17-4-2000 the Joint Collector again held that the respondent herein was not afforded adequate opportunity and remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, as already stated. The order of the Joint Collector on this aspect of the matter reads as under:
"8. Heard the arguments and perused the lower Court records. As seen from the lower Court record the appellant is not given opportunity to rebut or establish the correctness of LR. The very purpose of remanding the matter of lower Court is to afford a fair opportunity to both parties and arrive at a reasonable and indisputable conclusion on the issue of LRs. Thus it requires fair opportunity for the parties for cross-examination of witness, verification of documents, etc., which will have to be done in the presence of both parties and their Advocates. In the absence of the above procedure, the conclusion arrived at suffers from procedural irregularity and amounts to inadequate fair play."
5. On behalf of the petitioners it is rightly urged that successive remands, if without justification, would be productive of irretrievable hardship and cause injury to them. The question whether the order under attack in this revision is justified or not would have to depend upon an establishment of the fact whether adequate opportunity has been afforded to the respondent herein. That would depend upon the examination of the record of the primary authority-the Mandal Revenue Officer.
6. Sri Mahipathi Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent, however, urges that the revision itself is incompetent and not maintainable as under Section 91 of the Act a revision would lie only against the final order passed in the appeal and that the order impugned herein being a mere order of remand, revision is not maintainable. Support for his contention is drawn by Sri Rao on two decision of this Court in Yerraboth Satiah v. Edla Chaliah, 1960 ALT 191 and Gondla Jangaiah v. Md. Abdul Khader, 1971 (2) ALT NRC 10. In Satiah's case (supra) this Court, relying on an earlier decision in CRP 692 of 1957 held that an order of remand was, on the face of it, not a final order because it did not decide the rights of the parties and consequently declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Act. Similar was the view taken in Jangaiah's case (supra).
7. Sri Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend on a first principle analysis of the phraseology of Section 91, that successive remands being productive of as grave a hardship as a final adjudication determining the Ms adverse to the party's interest, in the circumstances where a remand is not justified, such an order could and should be interpreted to be a final order within the meaning of Section 91 of the Act and that in that premise a revision is maintainable even against an order of remand, when it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that it was wholly unjustified, irrational or without basis.
8. This interpretation on behalf of the petitioners does not commend itself to this Court. The legislature has, in its wisdom, conferred a restricted revisional jurisdiction on this Court and as against a final order. The expression "final order" should on etymological construction fall to be construed as an order determining the rights of the parties to the lis. This is the view taken in the earlier decision of this Court (supra). There appears no warrant on settled interpretive principles to depart from this view. Without dilating upon this aspect it does not appear to this Court that if an order of remand is passed arbitrarily and without basis by the appellant authority under the Act, the aggrieved person would be without remedy at law, a remedy de hors Section 91 of the Act.
9. Sri Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar K. Patel v. Upendralal J. Patel, , to contend that successive orders of remand should not be resorted to and in a given case the appellant Court itself should determine the substantive issues in the lis without recourse to the devise of remanding the matter to the preliminary authority again. There can be no hesitation in accepting this salutory principle. But the question herein is one of jurisdiction of this Court in revision, having regard to the contours of the language of Section 91 of the Act.
10. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no revision under Section 91 is available against an order of the appellate authority remanding the matter to the primary authority - the Mandal Revenue Officer. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.