Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.KONDAIAH, N.KUMARAYYA
Burhanuddin Hussain - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-02-69
NATURAL JUSTICE - REVENUE RECOVERY ACT, 1864 - SECTION 36 - SECTION 57-A - GOVERNMENT'S REVISIONARY JURISDICTION - ORDER PASSED WITHOUT NOTICE TO PARTY AFFECTED - CONTRAVENTION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - ORDER LIABLE TO BE QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an agriculturist, obtained a loan from the Government for purchasing a tractor. As he failed to repay the loan, proceedings under Section 36 of the A. P. Revenue Recover Act were initiated, and his lands were notified for sale. The lands were sold to the respondents, but they failed to make the initial deposit and pay the remaining purchase money within the stipulated time. The Revenue Divisional Officer directed forfeiture of their deposits and ordered resale. The respondents appealed to the Collector and the Board of Revenue, but their appeals were dismissed. They then approached the State Government under Section 57-A of the Act, which set aside the order of forfeiture and directed them to pay the balance of the bid amount with interest. The appellant, who had filed an application for setting aside the sale, challenged the Government's order on the ground that it was passed without notice to him and was against the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government's order was liable to be quashed as it was passed without giving notice to the appellant, who was adversely affected by it. The court observed that the Government, while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 57-A, was determining a question affecting the rights of the parties and was therefore bound to act judicially. The court further held that the principles of natural justice, including the rule of Audi Alteram Patem, were applicable to the Government's exercise of revisionary jurisdiction and that the Government's failure to give notice to the appellant was a contravention of these principles.
Issues: Whether the Government's order was passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Government's order was passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice as it was passed without giving notice to the appellant, who was adversely affected by it. The court observed that the Government, while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 57-A, was determining a question affecting the rights of the parties and was therefore bound to act judicially. The court further held that the principles of natural justice, including the rule of Audi Alteram Patem, were applicable to the Government's exercise of revisionary jurisdiction and that the Government's failure to give notice to the appellant was a contravention of these principles.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and quashed the Government's order. It held that the Government could still exercise its powers under revisionary jurisdiction under Section 57-A after giving due notice to the party and decide the matter in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the order of Seshachalapathi, J. refusing to quash the order of the Government passed in revision in exercise of its powers under Section 57-A of the A. P. Revenue Recovery Act.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are these: The appellant herein is an agriculturist residing in Pasalawadi village, Sangareddy Taluk, Medak District. He has obtained a loan from the Government in a sum of Rs. 16, 000 for purchasing a tractor for cultivating his lands. The amounts due from him swelled to Rs. 19, 456-67. As the petitioner appellant did not repay the loan in spite of demand, after some correspondence between him and the revenue authorities of accounts, proceedings under Section 36 of the A. P. Revenue Recover Act were started. His lands were notified for sale. The date of sale originally fixed was January 15, 1964. It was not held that day, but actually held on 4th March 1964. Of the 4 survey numbers, 3 survey numbers 110, 28 and 109 were knocked down in favour of the 2nd respondent for a total sum of Rupees 12,000. Another survey no. 158 was knocked down in favour of the 3rd respondent for a sum of Rs. 6, 100. There was yet another survey number which was also put another survey number which was also put to sale. It was knocked down in favour one Veeraiah whose case does not come up for our consideration in these proceedings. Section 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 embodies the procedure to be followed in sale of immoveable property. It makes in clause (3) a provision for deposit to be made by a purchaser. It says: " a sum of money equal to fifteen per cent f the price of the land shall be deposited by the purchaser in the hands of the Collector, or to her officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, at the time of the purchase and where the remainder of the purchase-money be not paid within thirty days, the money so deposited shall be liable to forfeiture. " In cl. (4), it further provides that if the purchaser does not make the initial deposit or does not pay the remaining purchase money the property shall be resold at the expense and hazard of such purchaser, and the amount of all loss or expense which may attend such refusal or omission shall be recoverable form such purchaser in the same manner as arrears of public revenue. In this case, the initial deposit was not made on the date of sale either by the second respondent or by the third respondent. They made these deposits on 5th and 11th March, 1964. The balance of the purchase money was not paid within 30 days as enjoined by Section 36. Thereupon the Revenue Divisional Officer in exercise of his power directed forfeitures of the deposits made by respondents 2 and 3 and ordered resale in august, 1964. By that time on 31-3-1964 the appellant herein had already filed an application objecting to set aside sale on grounds of material irregularities and fraud in publication and conduct of sale. That was filed will within time as enjoined by Section 38 and no sale therefore could be confirmed unless that application was rejected. it is stated that petition has not yet been disposed of. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing forfeiture of the deposits and resale respondents 2 and 3 went in appeal to the Collector, Medak under Sec. 158 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. These appeals, were however, dismissed. They did not move the Board of Revenue which had powers of revision under Section 57-A (3) instead went to the State Government invoking their powers under sub-clause (1) of Section 57-A. that clause reads thus :"the State government may, either suo motu or on application made to them call for and examine the record relating to any decision or order passed or proceeding taken by any authority or officer subordinate to them under this Act for the purposes of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of such decision or order or as to the regularity of such proceedings and
AI
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
