Back
AP High Court: GVMC, District Collector Cannot Challenge Government Order Granting
In a significant ruling on land rights under the , the dismissed writ petitions filed by the and the District Collector, Visakhapatnam. The court upheld the State Government’s revisional order granting to a farming family over 11.15 acres in Mudasarlova village.
Justice Sumathi Jagadam, presiding over the case, ruled on two intertwined questions: who can challenge a government order in its own hierarchy, and whether the claim for patta was time-barred.
Background: A Long-Standing Land Dispute
The dispute centered on Survey Nos. 32/4, 35/1, 35/2, 35/3, and 35/4 in Mudasarlova, a village once part of the erstwhile Vizianagaram Estate. After the estate's abolition, settlement operations were completed in . The Kandipilli family—predecessors of the private respondents—claimed , asserting they had been in possession as ryots before the crucial date of .
Their initial application under was rejected by the Settlement Officer in on grounds of limitation. This rejection was upheld by the Director of Settlements and the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records. However, in , the High Court, in W.P. No. 9038 of 1999, directed the Government to consider their representations on merits, disregarding the earlier limitation findings.
Following that direction, the District Collector examined the claim and rejected it in . The claimants then sought revision before the Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (EA & AR) Department, who allowed their petition in . That decision was challenged by the GVMC and the District Collector.
"": Collector Cannot Challenge Government's Own Order
A preliminary objection was raised by the private respondents: the District Collector, being a subordinate officer, could not maintain a writ petition against his own superior—the Government. The court agreed, citing the 's judgment in and .
Justice Jagadam observed that
"an officer designated by the Government to perform statutory duties cannot file a writ petition to challenge the Government's own orders, as the officer is fundamentally bound by the State's hierarchical decision."
The court emphasized that the Collector, acting as a delegate of the Government's statutory power under Section 11, exercises no personal authority.
"This is clearly impermissible in law besides being an antithesis to the '
',"
the court held, leading it to declare W.P. No. 11889 of 2018 "not maintainable."
The GVMC's petition, however, was found maintainable since it claimed a vested interest (land allotted for water works). The court proceeded to examine the merits of both petitions together.
Limitation: "Put to Rest" by High Court Order
The petitioners argued that the claim was hopelessly barred by limitation under the . The court rejected this, noting that the earlier High Court order of had explicitly directed the Government to decide the case on merits, without being influenced by earlier limitation-based dismissals.
"This Court is of the view that the directions issued in W.P.No.9038 of 1999, directing the Government to consider the representations of the unofficial respondents on merits, had put to rest the dispute of limitation once for all,"
the judgment stated. The court distinguished the present case from the Division Bench ruling in
, noting that here the claim was considered under , not under Section 11(a), and that the Government acted pursuant to a court order.
Land Classification and Possession
On the nature of the land, the petitioners claimed it was classified as "Water Works Poramboke" and thus not alienable. The court disagreed after examining the Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA) and other records.
"The Settlement Fair Adangal entries recording the predecessors of the private respondents as ryots in possession of the land were subsequently modified without any proceedings by striking off the relevant extracts,"
the court observed. Cist receipts from 1929, 1939, 1946, and 1947, along with koulu kada patram from 1945 to
, supported continuous possession. The court also relied on an Advocate Commissioner's report confirming that the private respondents were in possession with crops and plantations.
"The records clearly established that on the date of survey and settlement operation and at the time of preparation of Settlement Fair Adangal, the unofficial respondents' forefathers were in possession of the subject land and their names were registered in the Settlement Fair Adangal as ryots,"
Justice Jagadam wrote.
Revisional Authority's Power Upheld
The petitioners contended that the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence. The court found no such error, noting that the earlier authorities had dismissed the claim only on limitation, not on merits. The Revisional Authority, for the first time after the remand, examined the evidence and gave findings.
"The contention of the writ petitioners that the Revisional Authority committed jurisdictional error by re-appreciating the evidence cannot be accepted,"
the court ruled.
Scope of Certiorari: Interference Not Warranted
Relying on the 's decisions in
and
, the court reiterated that certiorari is a supervisory, not appellate, writ.
"A
could be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record... The writ petitioners could not make out any case that warrants interference of this Court, more particularly, a
which...cannot be issued on mere asking,"
the judgment stated.
Final Decision
Dismissing both writ petitions, the court held that the revisional order of , did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. No order was made as to costs. The ruling reinforces the principle that a subordinate officer cannot challenge the decisions of a superior in the government hierarchy and that long-standing possession supported by revenue records can overcome procedural bars when a higher court has directed reconsideration on merits.
