Back
1976 Supreme(AP) 265
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : LAKSHMAIAH
Maharajah Alak Narayana Society of Arts and Science - Appellant
Versus
Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Parvathipuram - Respondent
Decided On : 12-28-76
The principles of natural justice require that a person should be given an opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken that affects their rights.
Headnote:
INAMS ABOLITION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 3(2)(A), 7 - PATTA PROCEEDINGS - QUASHING OF - DELAY IN FILING APPEAL - CONDONATION OF - POWER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES OF - VIOLATION OF - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a society, claimed ownership of certain lands and alleged that the patta was granted to respondents 3 to 5 without any notice to the petitioner and without following the procedure prescribed under the Inams Abolition Act, 1956. The petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) in appeal, but the RDO rejected the appeal as barred by limitation and held that the RDO does not have the power to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not served with any notice of the patta proceedings and that the RDO erred in thinking that there was a delay in filing the appeal. The court further held that the RDO has the power to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the patta proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the RDO has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the patta proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not served with any notice of the proceedings. 2. The court held that the RDO has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the RDO and directed the RDO to take on file the appeal and dispose of the same according to law after giving opportunity to the parties concerned.
( 2 ) THE petitioner submitted in this writ petition that the lands in question were service inam lands. They were owned by the Rajah ofvizianagaram, who purchased the same in a revenue sale dated 7th December, 1945, in E. P. NO. 2g6 of 1937, in E. L,s. NO. 502 of1936, on the file of the Sub-Collector, Parvathipuram. Since then the name of the Rajah of Vizianagaram alone is shown in the Register as against the lands in question. Those lands were leased out to one Buddepu Subba, rao, the ancestor of respondents 3 to 5, on condition of his paying Rs 72-1-9 per annum. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Rajah of Vizianagaram was issued a notice under section 3 (2)- (a) of the Inams Assessment Act, 1956, calling for objections for the proposed assessment.
( 3 ) THE lands in question in a partition were allotted to the Rajkumar Visweswara gajapathi Raju, who in his turnendowed these lands in favour of the petitioner -society as per the decree in O. S. No. . 21 of 1963, on the file of the Sub-Court, viaianagaram on 27th September, 1963. When the said Sri Visweswara Gajapathi raju, approched the Tahsildar for particulars as to how the property stands in the Revenue records, he was informed by the Tahsildar, by his L. Dis. NO. 6507 of 1963. A-3 dated 2nd October, 1963, that the Patta stands already granted by the special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams),. Parvathipuram, in favour of Buddapu, subbu Rao, Narasimhamurthy and narayana. The petitioner thereafter approached the Tahsildar, Salur, in the, year 1964, for the issue of a certified copy ot the said patta proceed ings, so as to enable the petitioner-society to take up appropriate action. It is further contended by the petitioner that the predecessors of the petitioner were never appraised cf the nrocecdirgs taken or initiated under section 3 or under section 7 of the inams Abolition Act, Ig56. After some correspondence the Tahsildar, Salur, in formed the petitioner-society that the files, of the Special Deputy Tahsildar were not handed over to his office. As such he returned the copy application with a. direction that if necessary the Sub-Collector s office, Parvathipuram, may be approached. The Sub-Collector, Parvathi- puram, was therefore approached accordingly with a copy application by the petitioner-society, which was returned with an endorsement that the old records pertaining to the Inams Deputy Tahsildar were not available and the Tahsildar, salur, may be addressed for A and b Register with the Fair Adangal accordingly a certified copy of the fair addangal was obtained, wherein the name of Budde Narayana Murthy alone is shown. The petitioner-societywas obliged to approach the Revenue Divisional officer, Parvathipuram, by preferring an appeal against the said proceedings of the special Deputy Tahsildar under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. The revenue Divisional Officer however rejected the appeal as not maintainable by refusing to excuse the delay. It is under those circumstances the petitioner- society approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution.
( 4 ) IT is the contention of Sri Venkata- pathi Raju, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner- society is the owner of the lands in questi
