Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. It is at that stage, one M.A. Mukheem filed a public interest litigation in this Court levelling serious allegations that the Government lands in Ailapur Village were being converted as patta lands without any authority of law. A representation was made by one Vittal Reddy, the then local M.L.A., to the Chief Minister.

15. It is under those circumstances, the Joint Collector having invoked his jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the ROR Act') suo motu set the law in motion for making an appropriate enquiry with regard to the entries made in the record of rights including the revenue records in respect of the huge extent of land situated at Ailapur Village. Necessary notices were accordingly ordered to be issued to all the parties including the persons in actual possession of the lands, who also raised several objections for altering and modifying the entries in the revenue records. Some material appears to have been placed before the Joint Collector to the effect that entries even in respect of huge extent of Government land were also changed duly incorporating the names of the legal representatives of Hakim Mustafa Hussain. The Joint Collector having perused the records found that the compromise decree, or for that matter the decree, obtained by the parties does not bind the Government and the entries in the revenue records cannot be changed on the strength of such decrees adversely affecting the right, title and interest of the Government in Government lands. The Joint Collector found that the implementation of the decree obtained by the parties and consequent change in the records is vitiated by many procedural errors. The Joint Collector found that the entire village was sold for some nominal consideration by lessee in favour of a private individual, which included vast extent of Government land. The Joint Collector also found that the vast extent of land in respect of which entries are changed is in possession, occupation and enjoyment of the villagers and the entries made pursuant to the said decree adversely affected their rights. The Joint Collector further found that none of the contesting parties in the said suit were ever in possession of the lands at any point of time as the same is evident from the entries made in the records prior to their alteration by the authorities pursuant to the decree obtained by Shaik Imam Ali and others.

Contentions in the wit petitions before the learned Single Judge:

16. The respondents-writ petitioners filed W.P.Nos. 17020 of 1994 and 1461 of 1995, out of which these writ appeals arise, challenging the said order dated 22-6-1994 passed by the Joint Collector in purported exercise of the power conferred under Section 9 of the ROR Act. It was mainly contended that under Section 9 of the ROR Act, the Joint Collector can call and examine only the order passed or proceedings taken by any recording authority or an appellate authority to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such record, order or proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein and may pass orders amending, modifying, annulling or reversing such order or proceeding if it appears to him that it is just and necessary to do so. The Joint Collector cannot revise or review any earlier order passed by the same authority in exercise of the very power under Section 9 of the ROR Act. It was also contended that the suo motu revision cannot be exercised after an inordinate delay of more than twelve years and if at all can be exercised within a reasonable time. It was further contended that the Joint Collector cannot go beyond the decree granted by a competent Court of Civil jurisdiction as held by this Court in Meer Ahmed Ali Khan v. Momen Begum (1970 (2) APLJ 43). It was also urged that since there was already a direction of the High Court to implement the Civil Court decree to which he was a party, the impugned order amounts to refusal to obey the order of the High Court.

Submissions:

20. The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the appellants in W.A.Nos. 10 of 1998 and 125 of 2000 bitterly criticized the judgment rendered by the learned Judge of this Court. It was contended by the learned Advocate General that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot undertake to resolve the disputed questions of fact, in particular the questions relating to right, title and interest in immovable properties. The learned Judge, according to the learned Advocate-General, committed a serious and incurable error in holding that the Government has no title to the lands in question. The learned Advocate-General further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector does not amount to reviewing his own earlier order passed in the year 1982 whereunder directions have been issued to implement the decree of the Civil Court. The Joint Collector merely recalled his own order. It is a rectification of mistake committed by the same authority. The learned Advocate-General submitted that when an authority commits a mistake and seeks to rectify the same, it would amount to neither review nor revision. There is no time limit for rectification of a mistake or cancellation of a void order. The authority or the Tribunal has inherent power to recall such orders. The learned Advocate-General also contended that the order of the Joint Collector dated 19-5-1982 is a void order and it can simply be ignored. It can be erased from the records at any time.

21. Sri S. Venkat Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners, more or less, reiterated the submissions that were made before the learned Single Judge. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector suffers from incurable legal infirmities and jurisdictional errors. The Joint Collector can neither reopen nor review his own order. No order can be presumed to be void unless the same is put in issue and set aside by the competent Court of jurisdiction. The power, if any, vested in the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the ROR Act is required to be exercised within a reasonable period and at any rate such power cannot be exercised to unsettle the settled rights. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the decree obtained by the predecessor-in-title of the respondents-writ petitioners is not a compromise decree as is evident from the decree and judgment of this Court made in A.S. No. 506 of 1973, dated 21-10-1976, In the earlier proceedings, the Joint Collector merely directed the implementation of the decree of the Civil Court in the revenue records as well as in record of rights in terms of the orders made by this Court in W.P.No. 823 of 1965.