ORDER :- The petitioner herein assails the order of the second respondent, namely, the District Revenue Officer (DRO), dated 16.6.2006. In exercise of powers under Section 166-B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (the Revenue Act, for brevity), the second respondent directed the third respondent to rectify the entries in Pahanis for the year 1986-1987 and restore the same in favour of respondents 4 and 5. By impugned order, the second respondent also advised respondents 4 and 5 to approach Competent Authority for cancellation of Pattadar Pass Books (PPBs) and title deeds issued to the petitioner.

2. The brief fact of the matter is as follows: The petitioner herein is resident of Khajipet, Warangal District. He purchased land admeasuring Acs.1.36 guntas in Survey Nos.331 and 332 (old Survey Nos.154 and 156) of Khajipet Village under registered sale deed, dated 25.9.1978 from G. Lakshma Reddy and Dayananda Reddy, sons of Narasimha Reddy. Respondents 4 and 5 are daughters of the said Narasimha Reddy. The petitioner also obtained PPBs and title deeds from the third respondent under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the ROR Act, for brevity) and also got the property mutated in his name, as a result of which, necessary entries were made in Pahanis and other revenue records. Respondents 4 and 5 approached the second respondent and filed an application for rectification of entries in Pahanis alleging that their father Narasimha Reddy bequeathed his property under a Will towards Pasupukunkam and sought for cancellation of entries/mutation. The second respondent issued notice to the petitioner, who filed counter denying the ownership and possession of respondents 4 and 5. After considering the matter, the second respondent passed the impugned order.

3. The writ petition is filed inter alia contending that the second respondent is not Competent Authority to conduct enquiry under Section 166-B of the Revenue Act and that being lower in rank to the District Collector and Settlement Commissioner, he has only powers to put up the file before the District Collector. The same submission is reiterated strenuously by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. At the stage of Admission itself, this Court ordered notice to respondents 4 and 5 inviting affidavit from them. They filed counter-affidavit before this Court on 7.9.2006 disputing the petitioners contention. They relied on the provisions of A.P. District Collectors Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 (hereafter called, the Delegation Act) and the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. Ms. No.563, dated 22.5.1985 authorising the District Revenue Officers and Additional District Magistrates to exercise all powers vested in the District Collector under the Revenue Act.

4. After considering the Revenue Act, Delegation Act and the relevant notification issued by the Government, this Court is of considered opinion that the writ petition is misconceived. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the DRO of the District is not competent to exercise powers under Section 166-B of the Revenue Act cannot be countenanced.

5. So as to provide for delegation of powers by the District Collectors to Joint Collectors and certain other officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the State Legislature enacted Delegation Act. Sections 3 to 5 read as under.

3. Delegation of powers of District Collector :-The State Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette authorise any Joint Collector or any other officer of the State Government not below the rank of Deputy Collector to exercise all or any of the powers vested by or under any law in the District Collector and may in like manner, without such authorisation:

Provided that no authorisation under this section shall prevent the District Collector from exercising in such cases as he deems fit, all or any of the powers exercisable by the Joint Collector or other officer by virtu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document