2003 Supreme(AP) 129

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, N.V.RAMANA
M.B.Ratnam - Appellant
Versus
RREVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.R.DISTRICT, EAST DIVISION AT HYDERABAD - Respondent
Decided On : 01-24-03

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 226 – A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the R. O. R. Act) – Sections 2 3 4, 5, 5-A 5-B 6-A 7 9 – Rules – 45-A – Amending Act of 1994 – A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue act 1317 Fasli – Section 158 – Writ Of Certiorari – Writ Petition – The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records and the orders passed in Appeal and quash the same – The following questions arise for our consideration: (1) Whether the appeals preferred by the respondents herein on 18-12-2001 against the orders of mandal Revenue Officer under section 5-B of the R. O. R. Act are maintainable in law? Whether the revenue Divisional Officer has jurisdiction to entertain the appeals preferred by the respondents? (2) Alternatively, whether the Revenue divisional Officer properly exercised the jurisdiction in condoning the delay and allowing the appeals preferred by respondents after a long lapse of more than ten years? (3) The next question is whether the appeals preferred by respondents could be treated as appeals preferred under Section 5 (5) of the r. O. R. Act (4) Whether the appeals preferred by respondents may be treated as one preferred under Section 158 of A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue act 1317 Fasli – Held, (1)Court have already noticed that amending Act of 1994 was given effect from 31st October, 1993 – The Act did not provide any right of appeal or revision against the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue officer under Section 5-A of the R. O. R. Act prior to Section 5-B coming into operation – Thus, it is clear that neither on the date when the proceedings were instituted under Sec. 5-A of the R. O. R. Act nor as on the date when the orders were passed by the Mandal Revenue officer, there has been any right of appeal provided under the Act – The crucial test is as to whether there was any right of appeal as on the date when the proceedings were initiated and orders passed – The appeals are not maintainable in law – (2) The observations or findings, as the case may be, of the appellate authority are totally vague and indefinite – The observations are unintelligible – There is no material in support of the said observations – The vague explanation offered by the respondents about the entries and the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue officer, is totally unacceptable – For the aforesaid reasons, Court is of the considered opinion that the so-called appeals preferred by the respondents herein ought not to have been entertained by the appellate authority after long lapse of more than 10 years virtually unsettling the settled rights of the parties – The rights accrued in favour of the petitioners cannot be set aside resulting in miscarriage of justice – The order condoning the delay and admitting the appeals and their disposal is vitiated. It is an improper exercise of jurisdiction – (3) Admittedly, no appeal as against grant of certificate under Section 5-A (4) lies under section 5 (5) of the R. O. R. Act. The desperate argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents stands exposed itself – (4) The remedies provided under the R. O. R. Act alone would be available to the aggrieved individual – The contention urged by the learned counsel for respondents is accordingly rejected – Thus, the appeals preferred by the respondents herein before the first respondent cannot be treated as appeals filed under Section 158 of the Land revenue Act, 1317 Fasli – The appeals could not have been entertained even if the said appeals preferred by them are treated as appeals under Section 158 of the Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli – IN considered opinion, the characterisation of the order passed by the mandal Revenue Officer as void is not a determinative of its legal impact – In the instant case, nothing prevented the respondents herein from challenging the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer by availing such remedies as may have been available to them in law – For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the impugned order suffers from incurable legal infirmities – The order is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of record. It suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction – It is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside – Let a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the impugned order – Writ Petition Allowed