Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAGHUVIR, K.MADHAVA REDDY
A.KODANDA RAO - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P.REPRESENTED BY THE District Collector SRIKAKULAM - Respondent
W.A.No.357/78 & W.P.No.1000/78
Decided On : 07-01-81
Advocates Appeared :
.
Practice - Subsequent Bench of the same Court not agreeing with the view of an earlier Bench decision - It is not necessary to refer the matter for consideration by a larger Bench in view of a decision of the Supreme Court.
Held: The exercise of revisional jurisdiction suo motu beyond the reasonable lime cannot be sustained. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction suo motu must be exercised to advance the cause of justice and not to upset settled rights, more so in cases where an earlier attempt was made to question the order granting patta by way of revision and which was rejected by the Director of settlements himself. It cannot be deemed to be exercise of revisional jurisdiction within a reasonable time, if the same is sought to be invoked three years after the dismissal of the earlier revision. Even where no period of limitation is prescribed, the authority vested with jurisdiction to exercise revisional powers suo motu should exercise that power within a reasonable time. The Court is competent to consider whether the exercise of the suo motu power was within a reasonable time.
In this case, the action of the Director of Settlements in issuing notice in purported exercise of his suo motu powers of revision under Sec. 5(2) is after an unreasonably long lapse of time and cannot be sustained.
It is true that a view taken by a Division Bench of a Court is undoubtedly binding on subsequent Benches of the same Court and if any single Judge or a Division Bench of that Court does not find himself in, agreement with that view and thinks that view requires reconsideration, the only course open to the Judges disagreeing with that view is to refer the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. However, a few exceptions are provided to this general rule. The judgments of the Supreme Court are binding on the High Court and others and constitutes the law of the land. As such the case falls under the exception viz., "the Court is bound to refuse to follow its own decision which though not expressly over-ruled cannot in its opinion stand with the decision of the House of lords as held in 1944 (1) K.B. 718. The expression of any opinion by High Court or of any Court that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised at any time in the face of the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be followed.
Observation in 1975 (1) A.P.L.J., 111(1)(B) held not good law in view of A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1297.
W.A. & W.P. ALLOWED.
( 1 ) THE writ Appeal directed against writ petition No: 2766/77 and writ petition 1000/78 raise one common question of law, viz. , Whether the suo motu revisional powers vested in the Director of Settlements under section 5 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, hereinafter referred to as Estates Abolition act, could be exercised even after a lapse of twelve to thirteen years or have to be exercised within a reasonable time.
( 2 ) IN the writ Appeal, a further question arises as to whether the suo motu revisional powers could be exercised notwithstanding the dismissal of a revision petition filed earlier as time-barred.
( 3 ) THE appellants in the writ Appeal are the writ petitioners. It it their case that they were granted Ryotwari patta by the Settlement Officer, visakhapatnam under section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act in the year 1960 in respect of certain lands in Marripalem village in the estate of talagam. Long after the patta was granted, the District Collector, srikakulam filed a revision petition before the Director of Settlements in the year 1971. That revision petition was filed along with ft petition for condonation of delay. By an order dated 2-1-1971, the Director of settlements dismissed the petition as baired by limitation and on the ground that the order of the Settlement Officer had become final, in his D. Dis No: 27125/a3/71. That order became final. The Director of Settlements hoswever, issued a notice dated 5-2-1974 stating that under the powers conferred upon him under Section 5 (2) of the Act, he has taken up suo motu revisional enquiry regarding the lands in respect of which patta was granted to the appellants. The appellants entered appeurance and raised a preliminary objection that in view of the fact that the earlier revision petition filed by the Collector wag dismissed, he had no jurisdiction to take up suo motu enquiry under section 5 (2) of the Act. The Director of settlements by his order dated 13-6-1974 in R. P. No: 84/73 negatived the appellant s contenstion and proposed to proceed further in exercise of his suo motu revisional powers. Against the said order, the appellants preferred a further revision to the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements and Land Records, Andbra pradesh. The Commissioner dismissed the petition in C. P, Mis. No; 150/77 dated 1-6-1977 holding that the Director of Settlements could exercise the suo motu powers of revision and that there was nothing to exclude the case in question. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 1-6-1977 dismissed the revision and the writ Petition was directed against the said proceedings of the Board of Revenue and the Director of Settlements.
( 4 ) THOUGH the claim as to patta is disputed, the facts referred to above as to the circumstances in which the revision filed by the Collector was dismissed earlier on 2-1-1971 and the suo motu revisional power under section 5 (2) which is sought to be invoked by the Director of Settlements are not disputed. Out learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. dismissed the writ petition holding that the Director was fully competent to invoke his suo motu power of revision under Section 5 (2) for which no period of limitation was prescribed. He, however, observed:"it is no doubt true that even the power of revision. . . for which no period of limitation is prescribed-has to be exercited within a ressonablc time. This aspect was not urged before the Director of Settlesments. It is for the Director to take into consideration the said aspect at the time of passing final orders in the matter. "the writ appeal is directed against the said judgment.
( 5 ) IN writ petition No; 1000/78, the writ petitioners were granted patta of Ac. 00-21 cents of land in Survey No: 126/2 of Anumasamudram village, an inam village in Atmakur Taluk in Nellore district. The patta was granted under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act in the year 1959 after enquir
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
