( 1 ) THIS writ appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 8-9-1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 1917 of 1999 by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE appellant-writ petitioner claiming to be the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 3-07 cents in Sy. Nos. 148/1, 148/2a, 11513 and 622, situated at Tirupati Urban, Tirupati, applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer - 3rd respondent herein under the provisions of A. P. Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, (for short, the Act ) for grant of Pattadar Passbook in respect of the above lands. The 3rd respondent, on receipt of the application from the petitioner, sought instructions from the District Collector-1st respondent herein as to whether the said application of the writ petitioner should be entertained or not. It appears, after seeking instructions, the 3rd respondent Mandal Revenue Officer by his communication dated 20-10-1998 rejected the request of the writ petitioner to issue the pattedar pass book. The said communication of the 3rd respondent Mandal Revenue Officer, reads thus:"in pursuance of the directions issued in the Collector s reference L. Dis. B4/15006/98, dated 14-9-1998 consequent on the instructions solicited in the matter, it is informed that your request for the issue of Pattadar Pass Book will be considered only after settlement of title in the competent Court of Jurisdiction in respect of Sy. No. 148/1, 148/2, 153 and 622 for an extent of 3. 07 acres of Tirupathi Village and till such time your request cannot be considered. "

( 3 ) THE writ petitioner-appellant herein being aggrieved by the order dated 20-10-1998 of the 3rd respondent filed the Writ Petition. However, the learned single Judge went into the merits of the matter including the issue as to whether the writ petitioner has a valid title to the property or not and ultimately dismissed the writ petition by the order under appeal.

( 4 ) WE have heard Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner. In our considered opinion the learned single Judge is not justified in going into the merits of the claim of the writ petitioner appellant with regard to the title of the petition schedule land and in dismissing the writ petition on merit.

( 5 ) IT is trite that a statutory authority should exercise power vested in it independently and with due application of mind on the basis of the evidence placed before it and not being influenced by any opinion or dictation of any extraneous agency. A situation of the authority not exercising discretionary power arises when the authority does not consider the matter itself but exercises its discretion under the dictation of a superior authority. This, in law, would amount to non-exercise of its power by the authority and will be bad. Although the authority purports to act itself, yet, in effect, it is not so as it does not take the action in question in its own judgment and independently; as is intended by the statute. The decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji illustrates the point. The Bombay Police Act, 1902 granted authority to the Commissioner of Police to grant licences for the construction of cinema-theatres. The Commissioner granted a licence to the respondent in that case on the recommendation of an advisory committee but later cancelled it at the direction of the state government. The Supreme Court held that cancellation order bad as it had come from the government and the commissioner merely acted as a transmitting agent. In State of Punjab v. Suraj Parkash,2 the Supreme Court held that the State Government could not give any instruction to the consolidation officer functioning under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, as there was no provision in the said Act empowering the state government to give any such instructions to the Consolidation Officer.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document