Back
1994 Supreme(AP) 360
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.R.NAYAK
Bandaru Nayani Babu - Appellant
Versus
Raja Chintalapati, Ramakrishna Raju - Respondent
Decided On : 08-16-94
The validity of a Tahsildar's order under Sec. 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, including findings of fact such as whether certain lands were held by an institution, could not be challenged in collateral proceedings before authorities exercising power under Sec. 10-A of the Act. Such findings were binding on all persons and institutions.
Headnote:
ANDHRA PRADESH (ANDHRA AREA) INAMS (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1956 - SEC. 3, 10-A - VALIDITY OF TAHASILDAR'S ORDER UNDER SEC. 3 - BINDING EFFECT - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITIES UNDER SEC. 10-A - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, cultivating ryots of lands in Pasilivanipalem village, sought a declaration of permanent rights of occupancy under Sec. 10-A of the Act. The first respondent, claiming ownership of the lands through a will bequeathing them to a choultry, contested the claim. The Tahsildar, in earlier orders under Sec. 3 of the Act, had found that the lands were not held by an institution. The second respondent, on appeal by the first respondent, remanded the proceedings for fresh disposal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the orders of the Tahsildar under Sec. 3, having attained finality, could not be challenged in collateral proceedings under Sec. 10-A. The findings recorded by the Tahsildar, including that the lands were not held by an institution, were binding on all persons and institutions. Authorities exercising power under Sec. 10-A could not go beyond these findings.
Issues: 1. Whether the validity of a Tahsildar's order under Sec. 3 of the Act, specifically a finding that certain lands were not held by an institution, could be questioned in collateral proceedings before authorities under Sec. 10-A of the Act. 2. Whether original or appellate authorities exercising power under Sec. 10-A could go beyond the findings of fact recorded by the Tahsildar in his order under Sec. 3 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Sec. 3(5) and 3(7) of the Act rendered the Tahsildar's decision under Sec. 3 final and binding on all persons and institutions, regardless of their participation in the proceedings. 2. Proceedings under Sec. 10-A were collateral to those under Sec. 3. The validity of an order made without jurisdiction could be attacked even in collateral proceedings, but this principle did not apply where the order was made by a competent authority with jurisdiction, even if there were procedural irregularities.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order of the second respondent remanding the proceedings for fresh enquiry, holding that it was without jurisdiction.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the District revenue Officer (Respondent No. 2) in I. A. No. 1/89 dated 5-3-1991 allowing the appeal filed by the first respondent against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 3) in A. I. A. C. No. 1/89 dated 9-6-1989 and remanding the proceedings to the third respondent for fresh disposal.
( 2 ) A short but an important question of law of general importance which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the validity of an order made by the Tahsildar under Sec. 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1956 (Act No. XXXVII of 1956) shortly referred to as the act , to be specific in this case, a finding of fact that certain lands were not held by an institution can be permitted to be questioned in a collateral proceedings before the authorities exercising power under Sec. 10-A of the Act. An incidental question which arises out of the main question is whether the original or appellate authorities exercising power under sec. 10-A of the Act can go beyond the finding of fact recorded by the Tahsildar in his order made under Sec. 3 of the Act. These questions have landed in this court for decision with a history. The history, according to the petitioners, is that the petitioners are all the cultivating ryots in respect of the lands situated In pasilivanipalem of Chowduwada village which lands are hereinafter shortly referred to as the schedule lands . The schedule lands originally belonged to late Raja Chinthalapati suryanarayana Raj Bahadur varu. The andhra Pradesh State Legislature enacted the Act in the year 1956 and the Act came into force on 14-12-1956. After the Act came into force the Special Deputy Tahsildar. Inams, Vizianagaram held an enquiry under sec. 3 of the Act in respect of the schedule lands and gave his decision on 24-12-1959 holding that they are Inam lands in a Ryotwari village and they are not held by an institution. Very curiously in A. I. A. C. No. 6/80 the Special deputy Tahsildar, Inams, Visakhapatnam again published another order in respect of the schedule lands in the District Gazette on 18-4-1980 recording diametrically opposite findings that the schedule lands are not Inam lands and they are in Zamindari village; while on the third question he agreed with the earlier order dated 24-12-1959 in holding that the schedule lands were not held by an institution.
( 3 ) SECTION 10-A was inserted into the act by the Amending Act 20 of 1975. Thereafterwards the petitioners filed an application under Sec. 10-A of the Act for a declaration that they have permanent rights of occupancy in the schedule lands. When the said application was pending before the respondent No. 3, the first respondent entered the field of litigation. The first respondent filed a counter resisting the claim of the petitioners. In the counter filed by the first respondent it is stated that the owner of the village pasalavanipalem namely late Sri chintalapati Suryanarayana Raju garu executed a will on 30-1-1927 whereunder he bequeathed the schedule lands to a choultry to be located at Chodavaram for the benefit of Kshatriya boys for educational purposes and for their residence. The District Collector filed O. S. No. 13/48 on the file of the District judge under Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil procedure for framing a scheme for the choultry known as Raja Chintalapati Buchi seetnayyamma vari choultry, Chodavaram and the District Judge passed orders on 17-3-1951 for the framing of the scheme for running the charitable institution. It is further contended that under the Hindu Religious charitable Act the said choultry was registered as Charitable institution and the properties belonging to the institution were also registered under Sec. 38 of the Hindu religious and Endowments Act. It was claimed that from that time onwards the schedule lands became the properties of the first respo
