Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Datla Narasimha Raju And Others vs Principal Secretary To Government Of ... on 22 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)ALD365, 2001 A I H C 216, (2000) 2 ANDHWR 57 (2000) 2 ANDHLD 365, (2000) 2 ANDHLD 365
ORDER
1. This writ petition amply demonstrates how the statutory revisions provided under various statutes to the Government/Minister are stultified at the behest of the Subordinate Officials.
2. The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the issuance of G.O. Rt. No.46, Social Welfare (F) Department, dated 31-1-1995(File No.9170/ F.2/93) on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.
3. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows:
The first petitioner and late Datla Sathyanarayana Raju, father of the petitioners 2 to 4 and the husband of the fifth petitioner, purchased land to an extent of Ac.88-08 cents in various survey numbers in Lakkonda village, Addathigala Taluk, East Godavari District from one Dasari Veera Raju in the year 1947. Before purchase, they have obtained prior permission from the Special Assistant agent to the Government vide proceedings in D.Dis No.4239/45 dated 10-10-1945 and D.Dis No.255/47 dated 8-1-1947. Since the date of purchase the first petitioner and late Datla Satyanarayana Raju were continued to be in possession of the land and they also filed declarations under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and the said lands were computed to their holdings. While so, in the year (979 the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare), Pidathamamidi initiated proceedings under Section 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 (for short 'the Regulations') by filing LTRP No.171 of 1979 before the Special Deputy Collector (TW) Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District (third respondent). The third respondent dismissed the same on 21-3-1980 after holding an enquiry and the said order has become final. Again in the year 1988 the fourth respondent initiated fresh proceedings in LTRP No.140 of 1988 before the third respondent. The third respondent passed orders on 31-12-1990 holding that transactions pertaining to S.Nos.134/3, 135/2, 138/5 and 140 are valid and hence not hit by the provisions of the Regulations. He rejected the transactions of other survey numbers on the ground that alignor's name has not been mentioned in the proceedings granting permission in D.Dis No.255/47 dated 8-1-1947 ignoring the earlier orders passed in LTRP No. 171 of 1979. The petitioners preferred an appeal in CA No.11 of 1991 before the Agent to the Government, East Godavari District (second respondent). As the second respondent has declined to grant stay the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.3375 of 1991 and Writ Petition No.2155 of 1992 in which this Court granted interim orders permitting the petitioners to harvest the crop. The second respondent by order dated 13-4-1993 dismissed the appeal in CMA No. 11 of 1991 preferred by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a revision before the Honourable Minister for Tribal Welfare under Section 6 of the Regulations in File No.9170/F2/93. The Minister has not passed any order on the stay petition therefore the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.6279 of 1993 and obtained status quo on 18-6-1993. The petitioners further averred that the Hon'ble Minister heard the revision on 2-7-1994 and allowed the revision. While the petitioners were awaiting the orders they have received G.O.Rt.No.46 dated 31-1-1995 in which the Hon'ble Minister remanded the case to the second respondent for re-enquiry and to decide the same. Hence, the writ petition challenging the said G.O.Rt.No.46.
4. It is contended that successive Minister cannot review the judicial orders passed by the Minister, which is without jurisdiction and illegal. Once the orders are pronounced in the open Court the same cannot be reviewed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
5. The first respondent filed a counter admitting the fact of passing of the orders by the Minister. But it is contended in the counter that the Mandal Revenue Officer has taken possession of the properties on 20-2-1991 evicting the petitioners after the orders were passed in LTRP No.140 of 1988 on 31-12-1990. It is admitted in Para 6 of the counter that the Minister who heard the revision on 2-7-1994 passed orders but, since the order passed by the then Minister (TW) was not inconsonance with the policy of the Government and, as there was factual inconsistency the file was required to be recirculated to the former Minister with necessary advice but he returned the file without passing any further orders in the wake of the general elections to the State Assembly. As the Minister returned the file to the Department the file was recirculated to the present Minister concerned and after obtaining his orders the revised orders in G.O.Rt.No.46 were issued. Hence, the matter was remanded to the Agent to the Government with a direction to consider and give a decision carefully appreciating the details connected with the case. It is further averred that the former Minister of Tribal Welfare, who is the revisional authority, passed orders on 2-7-1994 in the revision orally and as the same was not communicated to the petitioner the successive Minister reviewed the order under G.O.Rt.No.46 and passed fresh orders.
6. Mr. A. Rama Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the order passed in G.O.Rt.No.46 is ex facie illegal and mala fide. Once the Minister, who is the revisional authority, by exercising quasi judicial power passed the order in the open Court the same is not open for the successive Minister to review the said order that too without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. The orders in G.O.Rt.No.46 are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. When the order is passed it is only the Ministerial action that the Department has to communicate the order but an office note was put up by the Secretary to the Minister to review the order. As the matter was heard by the previous Minister who passed orders and successive Minister without hearing the matter has revised the order basing upon the office' note which is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.
7. When the matter came up for hearing on 29-10-1999 this Court sought the assistance of the learned Additional Advocate-General in the above matter. Accordingly Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Additional Advocate-General appeared on 7-12-1999 and he fairly conceded that the order passed by the Minister on 2-7-1994 is a judicial order and unless it is set aside the same cannot be wiped of by issuing the impugned Government order which amounts to reviewing the order. The records produced by the learned Government Pleader do not disclose that before reviewing the order any notice was issued to the petitioner. As seen from the note file, it discloses that before the revision was taken up by the earlier Minister for hearing the opinion of the Law Department was sought and the Law Department gave its opinion that once the Special Deputy Collector passed an order in LTRP No.171 of 1979 dated 9-6-1980 he has no right under the regulations to review the earlier order in LTRP No.140 of 1988 dated 13-12-1990. In Para 48 of the file at Page 21 it is mentioned that the opinion given by the Law Department is correct and the Administrative Department has to take decision in the matter keeping in view the interest of the tribal respondents. After an elaborate discussion, the matter was taken up for hearing on 2-7-1994 and on the said date it is recorded that Sri A. Rama Krishna, advocate argued the case before the Minister and the Minister also passed the order as follows:
"The present regulations/rules of the previous Act which are in force from time to time in scheduled areas do not stipulate that the name of the transferee should be mentioned. I have seen the original application dated 26-12-1946. In the permission letters issued by the RDO, Peddapuram on 8-1-1947 the date of application was mentioned as 26-12-1947 instead of 26-12-1946 and this is definitely a typographical error. I have learnt that there is no rival respondent in this case. Since the revision petitioners have proved their title over the entire extent of land by adducing necessary documents and as the advice of the Law Department is also in favour of the revision petitioners, I hereby allow the revision petition filed by Sri Datla Narasimha Raju and others in this case.
Please issue orders accordingly."
8. The Minister signed it on 26-8-1994. An office note was put up instead of allowing the revision petition at the Government level as to whether the case may be remanded to the Special Deputy Collector, (Tribal Welfare) for fresh enquiry and disposal taking into consideration the evidence and arguments advanced before the Minister by the revision petitioners and the file may be recirculated to the Minister. The Principal Secretary by his endorsement dated 5-12-1988 at Page No.46 suggested the Minister to reconsider and the matter may be remanded to the agent to the Government who will consider and give decision appreciating the details. After that the present Government order in G.O. Rt. No.46 was issued.
9. As seen from the note file, it is evident that the Minister, who is the revisional authority, exercised his discretion and passed order in the open Court, which was signed by him on 26-8-1994 with a direction to issue orders accordingly. Inspite of the same, the Ministerial staff attached to the Minister were reluctant to issue orders but a note put up to the Minister with a view to review the order and remand the same to the lower Appellate Court i.e., agent to the Government, for which the Minister refused. In the meanwhile, the Ministry is changed and the same note was again put up before the successive Minister who not only reviewed the earlier order passed by the previous Minister but remanded the matter to the agent to the Government in G.O. Rt. No.46, dated 31-9-1992 acting according to the tunes of his subordinates. When once the Minister who was conferred with quasi judicial functions exercised those powers and allowed the revision, he or the successive Minister cannot review the same unless the statue confers such power on the revisional authority. Regulation 6 provides only revisional power on the State Government to revise any decree or order passed by the agent, the Agency Divisional Officer or any other prescribed officer under the Regulations. In Patel Chumibhai Daji Bhai v. Narayan Rao Khande Rao, , the Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Collector in exercise of his revisional power was quasi judicial and was final. In the absence of review he could not subsequently reconsider his previous order/decision and can hold that there were grounds for annulling or revising it, the subsequent order re-opening the matter was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. Similarly in Major Chandra Ban Singh v. Latapat Ullakhan and others, , the Supreme Court held that once an order has become final, it was not permissible for any one to re-open it merely on the basis of a restoration application and to review the earlier order passed by the competent authority under Evacue Interest (Separation) Act, 1951.
10. In the instant case, the third respondent dropped the ejectment proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent by order dated 19-6-1980 in LTRPNo.171 of 1979. Again after 10 years, the third respondent rejected the transactions of some survey numbers on the proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent. The same amounts to reviewing the earlier order passed by the third respondent. If any person aggrieved by an order or decree passed under Regulation 3(2) an appeal lies under Regulation 3(3)(a) to the agent to the Government. Once no appeal has been preferred against the orders passed on 21-3-1980 the same cannot be re-opened and reviewed unless the statute confers such power on the primary authority. Equally the Minister who allowed the revision after taking opinion of the Law Department cannot review the order passed by his predecessor on the note put up by his subordinates. It is well settled that once an order is passed by the revisional authority, a right will be accrued in favour of the parties in whose favour the order is so passed (See: Narayana Valasa Gram Panchayat v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (1) An.WR 129). Even otherwise if such a power of review is conferred, it is incumbent upon the revisional authority to provide an opportunity to the parties likely to be effected if the said order is annulled or modified. The first respondent revisional authority without following the principles of natural justice not only set aside the earlier order passed in favour of the petitioner but also reviewed the same and modified the order by remanding the matter to the lower Court for fresh disposal, the said order is not only, illegal and without jurisdiction. In view of the same, G.O. Rt. No.46, Social Welfare (F) Department, dated 31-1-1995 cannot be sustainable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed.
11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is hereby directed to issue the orders in revision passed on 2-7-1994 which was signed by the Minister on 26-8-1994 within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.