Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 198
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.RAIKOTE
Muthyalrao Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., rep.by its President A.Satyanarayana - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., rep.by the Secretary, Revenue (ASN-II) Department, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 04-07-95
The power of review conferred by the Statute may be of two kinds (1) to correct clerical or arithmetical error and (2) to modify the judgment or order on the basis of some error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier one is a procedural review and the latter is a substantive review. Section 166 (1) of the Land Revenue Act provides such a procedural review and Sec. 166 (6) of the said Act provides a substantive review.
Headnote:
LAND REVENUE ACT - REVIEW - LIMITATION - REVIEW POWER - SUO MOTU REVIEW - JURISDICTION - ARBITRARINESS - ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS - REGULARISATION - G.O. - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-society challenged the G.O. issued by the first respondent, modifying its earlier G.O. under its review power under Section 166 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli. The petitioner submitted that the impugned G.O. is illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the said G.O.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned G.O. is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court further held that the first respondent could not have passed the impugned G.O. by reopening the entire issue in its review power under Sec. 166 of the Land Revenue Act. The Court also held that the impugned G.O. is liable to be set aside, even on the merits of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned G.O. is barred by time under Section 166 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli? 2. Whether the first respondent has the power to review its own order suo motu? 3. Whether the impugned G.O. is arbitrary and impermissible under Sections 166 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Land revenue Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 166 (6) of the Land Revenue Act applies only in case of agricultural land, because sub-section (6) refers to ryots, which means in relation to agricultural land, and thus, the question of limitation does not arise in this case, as the dispute relates to house plots. 2. Every Revenue Officer may, either himself or on the application of any party, review his own order. Under Section 166 (6) of the Land Revenue Act, no order or decision shall be reviewed, wherever the mutual rights of the parties would be affected, unless an application is filed by some party to the case and such application shall be admitted only, if it is filed within 90 days from the date of the order or decision. The harmonious construction of the provision would be that there could be suo motu review by the authority u/s. 166 (1) of the Land revenue Act, under the words "either himself." If the review is by himself, it is only to correct some clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors. Similar power is given to courts under Sec. 152 of C. P. C. according to which "clerical or arithmetical mistakes in Judgments and decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Court either by its own motion or on the application of any of the parties." 3. The impugned G.O. is arbitrary and impermissible under Sections 166 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Land revenue Act. It is not the case in which a new evidence has come as all the facts pleaded in the review proceedings were already present in the earlier proceedings and the impugned proceedings are not the one in which there was some mistake or omission or *any other reasonable grounds for review.
Final Decision: The impugned G.O. Ms. No. 1049, Revenue (ASN-III) Department, dated 15-10-1992 is hereby quashed subject to the observations made above. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner-M/s. Muthyala Rao Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , has challenged the G. O. Ms. No. 1049, Revenue (ASN-III) Department, dt. 15-10- 92, (hereinafter referred to as 1992 G. O. ) issued by the first respondent. It is submitted xxxx that by this G. O. , the first respondent Government have modified its earlier G. O. Ms. No. l699, Revenue (Q) Department, dt. 17-11-1984, (hereinafter referred to as 1984 G. O. ) under its review power under Section 166 of A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli.
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 1992 G. O. is illegal and without jurisdiction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the said 1992 G. O.
( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties, it is necessary to note a few facts of the case.
( 4 ) THE dispute relates to a land bearing Survey Nos. 218/1and3 of ramakrishnapuram, hamlet of Malkajgiri village. It is submitted that though the land in Survey No. 218 is a very vast land more than Ac. 200. 00 the present dispute relates only to the extent of Ac. 30. 00. It is not in dispute that in the year 1953, this piece of Ac. 30. 00 was handed over to the Social Welfare Department as per the orders of the then Collector and Tahsildar, Hyderabad East, for the purpose of rehabilitating 150 families of "defence followers lines", and on the representation made by one Sri J. Mutyala Rao, the then Member of Parliament, possession was also handed over on 8-5-1953. But the contention of the petitioner is tha t after such handing over of possession of the land to the Social welfare Department, the said land was handed over to the petitioner-Society, which was registered in the year 1967. Such handing over of possession took place on the basis of the letter issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, social Welfare Department, dated 15-4-1974. The said letter reads as under:-"government OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Social Welfare Department) from: To: v. Dharma Chary, B. A. , The President, dist. Social Welfare Officer, Muthyal Rao Co-op. Housing (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad. Society Limited, ramakrishnapuram, office at 10-B Staff Quarters, o. U. Campus, hyderabad. Rc. No. E/658/78, dated 15-4-1974 sir, sub:- Sy. No. 218/1/3 (30 acres) Jagjeevanramnagar colony assigned in 1953 - title of assignment intimation - Regarding ref:- Your Lr. No. MCHS/1/74 dt. 15-4-1974 with reference to your letter cited, it is to inform you that an area of 30. 00 acres of land in Sy. No. 218/1/3 of Malkajgiri village (at ramakrishnapuram hamlet) has been assigned to Social Welfare department and possession was also taken in the year 1953 for allotting plots to the members of Muthyalarao Co-operative Housing Society limited, Ramakrishnapuram, (Regd. No. TB-864/69 ). As per the bye-laws of your society, the Managing Committee has to allot the plots to the members and also obtain loans from the Co-op. Societies or from any other source from where loans can be secured for construction of houses. Sd/- district Social, Welfare officer, (Land Acquisition) Hyd. true copy sd/- for Asst. Secretary to government"
( 5 ) FROM the reading of the said letter, it is clear that the Social Welfare department was given possession of the land in the year 1953 for the purpose of allotment of plots to the members of the petitioner-society. Further, the said letter authorises the Managing Committee of the Society to allot the plots to the members according to its bye-laws. It could also obtain the loans from any other source for the construction of the houses. This letter is not disputed by the learned counsel for the first respondent.
( 6 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the said letter, plots were allotted to the members of the petitioner-society and such allotment has been made in all to 265 members. In pursuance of such allotment, number of members of the petitioner-society put
