Back
1958 Supreme(AP) 124
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : UMAMAHESWARAM
G.Ramappa - Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the Revenue Dept - Respondent
Decided On : 08-13-58
The Government has no inherent power of review and that the order assigning the land to the 3rd respondent was not a judicial or quasi-judicial order.
Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ASSIGNMENT OF PORAM BOKE LANDS - LEGAL RIGHTS OF VILLAGERS - REVIEW OF EARLIER ORDER - POWER OF GOVERNMENT - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION - POWER OF SUPERINTENDENCE - JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER - POWER OF REVIEW - REASONS FOR RESCINDING EARLIER ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, villagers of T. Sodam Village, challenged the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh assigning certain poramboke lands to the 3rd respondent, a political sufferer. The petitioners claimed that they had legal rights in the poramboke lands and that the assignment violated their rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had no legal rights in the poramboke lands and therefore could not maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court also held that the Government had no inherent power of review and that the order assigning the land to the 3rd respondent was not a judicial or quasi-judicial order. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had legal rights in the poramboke lands? 2. Whether the Government had the power to review its earlier order assigning the land to the 3rd respondent? 3. Whether the order assigning the land to the 3rd respondent was a judicial or quasi-judicial order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners had no legal rights in the poramboke lands based on the following principles: - The mere registration of land as a particular kind of poramboke does not create any vested right in the villagers to hold it as such against the Government. - Such registration implies no kind of dedication or trust or any recognition of a vested right or user. - Unless the villagers had acquired rights in or over the land either under a grant, proved or presumed, or by custom or by prescription, they could not complain of any legal injury resulting from the assignment of the poramboke by the Government. 2. The court held that the Government had no inherent power of review and that the order assigning the land to the 3rd respondent was not a judicial or quasi-judicial order based on the following principles: - A court or tribunal has no inherent power of review. - The power of review must be conferred by statute. - The order assigning the land to the 3rd respondent was an administrative order and not a judicial or quasi-judicial order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memorandum No. 43778-B/57-1 dated 24-9-1957 directing the provisional assignment to the 3rd respondent of the tends in Survey Nos. 512/2a/2, 512/2b and 472/2 excluding the portion of a site occupied by the poor Harijans in the village of T. Sodam in Chittoor District.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that in 1950, the 3rd respondent herein was provisionally assigned certain poramhoke lands in T. Sodam village and that upon the representations made by the villagers, the Tahsildar, Madanapalli submit led a report, E 1-9909/53 dated 13-10-1955 and that the Sub-Collector by his proceedings D. Dis, No. 19161/55 dated 20-10-1955 cancelled the provisional assignment except in regard to Survey No. 273/1. Thereupon the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal to the Collector, and the Collector of Chittoor in D. Dis. No. 23514/55 dated 1-9-1956 substantially dismissed the appeal. In regard to an extent of about 1 1/2 acres of land under the cultivation of the 3rd respondent in S. No. 512/2a/2 and S. No. 512/2b, the appeal was allowed. By Memorandum No. 454-B/56-7, dated the 26th of March 1957, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, dismissed the application of the 3rd respondent and confirmed the order of the Collector. But, on a fresh application dated 22-4-57 filed by the 3rd respondent for reconsidering the Government Memo No. 454-B/56-57, dated the 26th of March 1957, the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Revenue Department, passed an order on 34th of September, 1957 in Memorandum No. 43778-B/57-1 dated the 24th of September 1957 in the following terms:"government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Department. Memorandum No. 43778-B/57-1, dated 24/09/1957. Subject: Assignment - land - grant to poli tical sufferers - (Chittoor) - Madanapalli talug - T. Sodam (village) S. No. 513/2-A-2 etc,, grant _ confirmation. Ref: 1. Govt. Memo No. 454-8,56-57, dated 26-3-57 2 From Sri P. Subrahmanyachari, Petition, dt. 22-4-57. In modification of the order issued in the Government Memorandum first cited, the Government direct that the provisional assignment of the lands in S. Nos. 512/2a/2, 512-2b, 278/1 and 472/2 of T. Sodam Village in Chittoor District, made to the political sufferer, Sri P. Subrahmanyachari be con-finned, except for the portion of the site occupied by the poor Harijans. The Collector of Chiltoor is requested to take action accordingly. The petitioner is referred to the Collector of Chitioor for orders on his petition. J. Ramaswamy, Assistant Secretary to Government. "the petitioners thereupon filed the above writ before this Honble Court.
( 3 ) THE contentions raised by Sri A. Bhujenga Rao, the learned advocate for the petitioners, were: (i) that under the Boards Standing Orders, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or revision as against the order of the Collector of Chittoor dated 1-9-1956: (2) that even assuming that the Government of Andhra a Pradesh had such Jurisdiction it had power to review the earlier order passed in March 1957; (3) that the order passed in September 1957 was vitiated by reason of no notice being given to the villagers who objected to the assignment of the land in favour of the 3rd respondent, and Justly (4) that the order was vitiated as no reasons me given for reviewing and going behind the earlier order passed in March 1957. On behalf of the Government and the 3rd respondent, two preliminary objections were raised viz, that the petitioners were not entitled to maintain, the application for the issue of a writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution inasmuch as they had no legal rights in the poramboke lands and (2) that they had an alternative remedy by way of suit As I am inclined to uphold the preliminary objections, I think it is unnecessary to deal with the merits of the application in detail.
