Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Noundru Venkata Lakshmi Vijaya Kumari vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 27 September, 2016
Author: P.Naveen Rao
Bench: P.Naveen Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
Writ Petition No. 19366 of 2007
27-09-2016
Noundru Venkata Lakshmi Vijaya Kumari... Petitioner
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare (LTR-2)
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.. Respondents
Counsel for petitioner : Sri P. Rajasekhar
Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 : The Government Pleader
for Social Welfare (AP)
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? CASES REFERRED :
1) AIR 2003 SC 3044 (1)
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 19366 of 2007
ORDER:
Petitioners mother, by name, Noundru Seethamma, claims to have purchased land to an extent of Acs.2.33 cents in Survey No.71/3 and an extent of Ac.1.68 cents in Survey No.72/1 (total Acs.4.01 cents) in Pothavaram Village, Koyyuru Mandal, Visakhapatnam, in the year 1975, from one Chamantula Ananda Rao, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The land is in an agency area.
2. Later, Ch. Ananda Rao filed a petition before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) complaining that husband of Noundru Seethamma was a non-tribal and the land should be restored to him, as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation 1 of 1959) read with Regulation 1 of 1970. The said complaint was enquired into and having found no merit in the complaint and holding that the transaction was between two tribals, the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) dismissed the complaint by order dated 30.10.1977.
3. Ch. Ananda Rao again filed a complaint in the year 1986 before the same authority seeking restoration of the subject land from Noundru Seethamma. The Special Deputy Collector, after enquiring into the matter, held that Ch. Ananda Rao mortgaged the property to Noundru Rama Murthy, a non-tribal, husband of Seethamma, and ordered for ejectment of Noundru Rama Murthy from the land, vide orders dated 09.10.1986 made in LTR Case No.269 of 1986. Accordingly, the land was restored to Ch. Ananda Rao on 22.03.1987.
4. While so, in the year 1997, the petitioner herein, who is daughter of Noundru Seethamma, submitted a representation to the Member Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, stating that her mother fell sick in the year 1986 and the entire family left the village, and in their absence, the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) passed orders on 09.10.1986 and, pursuant thereto, they were illegally dispossessed from the subject land. A representation was also made to the Government for restoration of the land. The said representation was forwarded to the Collector and Agent to Government for necessary action.
5. As her representation was pending for consideration, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19774 of 1998 praying for a direction for early disposal of her representation. This Court, by order dated 17.07.1998 made in W.P.M.P.No.23616 of 1998, directed the Collector and Agent to Government to dispose of the representation of the petitioner forthwith.
6. In pursuance of the said interim orders of this Court, the representation of the petitioner was taken up as an appeal under Section 3-A(ii) of Regulation 1 of 1959. After hearing the rival claims, the Agent to Government set aside the orders of the Special Deputy Collector, vide his order dated 29.07.1999.
7. Aggrieved thereby, one Margarat Suguna Kumari, 5th respondent herein, filed a revision petition before the Government, claiming to be the niece of Ch. Ananda Rao. As the said revision petition was not disposed of, W.P.No.18823 of 2000 was filed before this Court. By order dated 29.09.2000, this Court directed the Government to dispose of the revision petition, expeditiously.
8. Having considered the submissions of both sides, the Government held that the revision petitioner is not the legal heir of Ch. Ananda Rao and not recognized as such by any competent authority and that, therefore, she cannot effectively prosecute on behalf of Ch. Ananda Rao. The Government agreed to the decision of the Agent to Government, insofar as the transaction between Ch. Ananda Rao and Noundru Seethamma is concerned. However, the Government noticed that Ch. Ananda Rao was assigned D Form patta for the subject land and, therefore, he cannot alienate the land to any other person including a tribal and, as such, the transaction is prohibited by the A.P. Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfers Act, 1977 (Act, 1977). Thus, while dismissing the revision petition, the Government directed the Agent to Government, Visakhapatnam, to take over possession of the land and assign to other eligible landless poor tribals. Aggrieed by the said order to the extent of directing the Agent to Government to take over possession of the land and assign to other eligible landless poor tribals, this writ petition is filed by the petitioiner, daughter of Noundru Seethamma.
9. At the stage of admission, this Court granted an interim stay, as prayed for.
10. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner is in possession of the land. Once the revisional authority held that the transaction between two tribals was validly taken, the Government becomes functus officio, insofar as the provisions of the Regulation 1 of 1959 are concerned. Therefore, while considering a revision filed under Regulation 1 of 1959, it is not open to the Government to go into any other issue, even assuming for arguments sake that the transaction between Ch. Ananda Rao and Noundru Seethamma was hit by the provisions of Act, 1977. A quasi-judicial authority derives powers under the relevant provisions and exercise of such powers cannot transgress the limits and deal with something and, hence, it is not within the jurisdiction of such authority. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others . He would, therefore, submit that to the extent of a direction incorporated in Paragraphs-9 and 10 of the impugned order, the Government is ex facie illegal to take over possession of the land.
11. The Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing the respondents would submit that it is within the competence of the Government, when it comes to the notice of the Government that an illegal transaction had taken place between two individuals and such transaction is clearly hit by the provisions of Act, 1977. He does not dispute the fact that the Government was exercising the power of revisional jurisdiction under Regulation 1 of 1959.
12. The short issue for consideration is, whether it is permissible for the Government to undertake such exercise of holding that the purchase of property by Noundru Seethamma from Ch. Ananda Rao has violated the provisions of Act, 1977?
13. Section 6 of the Regulation 1 of 1959 reads as under:
Revision:- The State Government may revise any decree or order passed by the Agent, the Agency Divisional Officer or any other prescribed officer under this Regulation;
Provided that this power shall be exercised only after due notice to the parties affected by the decree or order and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
14. A bare reading of this provision would show that the Government is vested with power to revise any decree or order passed by the Agent, the Agency Divisional Officer or any other prescribed officer under the Regulations. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Government to exercise this power of revision is confined to the decree or order passed by the Agent, the Agency Divisional Officer or any other prescribed officer under the Regulations. Thus, when the revision was considered by the Government, the scope of the revision was only with reference to whether the transaction made between two tribals was vitiated by Regulation 1 of 1959. Once a finding is recorded that the transaction was made between two tribals, and that there is no violation of Regulation 1 of 1959, the Government has no further competence to deal with violation of the transaction between two tribals by any other statutory provision.
15. In the instant case, the Government upholds the decision of Agent to Government with reference to the transaction between two tribals. Without stopping there, the Government proceeds further, considers the validity of the transaction between two tribals with reference to Act, 1977, on the ground that Ch. Ananda Rao was the assignee and, therefore, he could not have alienated the land assigned to him. If there is violation of the provisions of Act, 1977, appropriate proceedings may be initiated under the said Act by the competent authority. While exercising revisional jurisdiction under Regulation 1 of 1959, the Government cannot deal with the transaction between Ch.Ananda Rao and Noundru Seethamma as violative of the provisions of Act, 1977 and, consequently to issue directions to the Agent to Government to take over possession of the land and assign to other eligible land less poor tribals.
16. With reference to the competency of a quasi-judicial authority, in Surya Devi Rai, the Supreme Court held as under:
Para-38(3) -Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or
(iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.
17. In the instant case also, the Government assumed jurisdiction which is not vested under Regulation 1 of 1959. Once a decision is made under Regulation 1 of 1959 in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it becomes functus officio. Therefore, the order of the Government to the extent of holding that the purchase made by Noundru Seethamma from Ch.Ananda Rao was vitiated by the provisions of the Act, 1977, and issuing further directions to the Agent to Government to take over possession of the subject land, is without jurisdiction and competence. Therefore, the impugned order to the extent of directing the Agent to Government to take over possession of the land and assign to other eligible landless poor tribals, is liable to be set aside on that ground, and it is, accordingly, set aside. However, it is made clear that if there is any violation of the relevant provisions of the Act, 1977, it is open to the competent authority to take action, as warranted by law, and this order does not come in the way of taking any such action under the Act, 1977.
18. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand dismissed.
_______________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 27th September, 2016