Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
M. NARSINGA RAO - Appellant
Versus
SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, HYDERABAD - Respondent
Decided On : 07/13/2007
Advocates Appeared :
M.RAMA RAO, NALIN KUMAR
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land revenue Act, 1317-F – Section 172 – Landless poor person – Government assigned Land - Petitioner, who is a landless poor person, asserts that he was assigned an extent of of land situated in Kangarakala Village district personally brought the land under cultivation in the and since then, he has been attending to agricultural operations in it revenue Divisional officer submitted proposals stating that the petitioners was originally assigned an extent of only Ac. 2. 38 gts of land and Chandraiah managed to get for his minor son, who is the petitioner herein, an assignment of and both of them got assignment certificates for an extent of situated in respectively and their names were recorded as pattadars in and recommended to the Joint Collector for cancellation of the extra land assigned in favour of Chandraiah and to assign the same in favour of 3rd respondent conducting a detailed enquiry, the Joint Collector accepted the recommendations/proposals made by the Revenue Divisional Officer and passed an order retaining an extent of only Ac. 2. 38 guntas in favour of chandraiah and cancelling petitioner holding of an extent petitioners grievance is that when he filed an appeal questioning the order respondent-Special commissioner dismissed it cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner and reassigning it to the 3rd respondent –Held, no doubt that where no period of limitation is prescribed by the Act or the Rules made thereunder for the exercise of the suo motu power of revision, the exercise of that power cannot be impugned on the ground that it is barred by limitation. No period of limitation can be imposed otherwise than by statute or the rules made thereunder nonetheless, merely because power is vested in an authority to revise the orders of the subordinate authorities suo motu, the power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. In cases where no period of limitation is prescribed under the statute or the rules made thereunder for exercise of revisional powers suo motu the question for consideration is not whether the exercise of the power is barred by limitation for in the absence of a period of limitation prescribed under the Act question of bar of limitation cannot arise, it is a question of the reasonable period of limitation within which that power should be exercised where the question is one exercising that power within a reasonable time and what is reasonable period would undoubtedly be dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case another judgment reported in Gudepu sailoo and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh a learned Single Judge of this Court clearly observed that powers of revision can be exercised by the Government within a reasonable time within one year only – Writ petition is allowed.
( 2 ) THE petitioner, who is a landless poor person, asserts that he was assigned an extent of Ac. 05. 00 cents of land in s. No. 300 situated in Kangarakala Village, ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, in the year 1961. He personally brought the land under cultivation in the year 1976 and since then, he has been attending to agricultural operations in it. While so, on 24. 3. 1992, the Revenue Divisional officer submitted proposals stating that the petitioner's father M. Chandraiah was originally assigned an extent of only Ac. 2. 38 gts of land, and later, Chandraiah managed to get for his minor son, who is the petitioner herein, an assignment of Ac. 05. 00 cents, and both of them got assignment certificates for an extent of Ac. 02. 38 guntas and ac. 05. 00 cents situated in S. Nos. 300/15 and 300/16 respectively and their names were recorded as pattadars in the year 1961-62 and recommended to the Joint Collector for cancellation of the extra land assigned in favour of Chandraiah and to assign the same in favour of M. Jangaiah, the 3rd respondent herein. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the Joint Collector accepted the recommendations/proposals made by the Revenue Divisional Officer and passed an order dated 1. 10. 1994 retaining an extent of only Ac. 2. 38 guntas in favour of chandraiah and cancelling the petitioner's holding of an extent of Ac. 05. 00 cents. Now, the petitioner's grievance is that when he filed an appeal questioning the order, dated 1. 10. 1994, the 1st respondent-Special commissioner (Land Revenue) dismissed it cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner and reassigning it to the 3rd respondent.
( 3 ) IN spite of the fact that notices are served on the respondents, they have not chosen to file counter-affidavit.
( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for both the parties.
( 5 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that maybe, the father of the petitioner was granted an extent of Ac. 2. 38 gts. , but it does not preclude the petitioner from getting further assignment of Ac. 05. 00 cents. In fact, the assignment was within the knowledge of the authorities, and according to him, the order of the Joint Collector cancelling the assignment made in the year 1961 in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he was a minor at the relevant point of time, absolutely has no substance because the law does not say that a minor is not entitled for assignment.
( 6 ) MR. Nalin Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, while trying to support the orders passed by the Joint collector as well as the Special commissioner, has contended that a person is entitled for grant of assignment in an extent of only Ac. 05. 00 cents, but as the total assignment made to the petitioner and his father is Ac. 7. 38 gts which is more than the prescribed extent of Ac. 05. 00 cents, it necessitated the authorities to cancel the assignment and reassign it in favour of the 3rd respondent.
( 7 ) THE Government, with effect from 1st November, 1969, launched a special crash programme for assignment of Government waste lands to the landless poor persons taking into consideration the prevalence of their poverty in the country as well as the states and the respective State Governments devised assignment policies to see that the landless poor persons are provided with lands for the purpose of doing agriculture or granting house-site pattas. In this context, the Government issued several Government Orders explaining the assignment policy and later revising such policy many a time. In fact, as per the revised assignment policy, the State government has examined the question of integrating the provisions relating to the assignment of Government lands at present obtaining in Andhra and Telangana Areas of the State with a view to evolving a common policy
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
