Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD
GOPALA RAO EKBOTE, RAMACHANDARA RAO, JJ.
Kodumori Venkateswara Rao - Petitioner
Versus
Jasti Venkateswara Rao - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 1680 of 1967
Decided on : 12-6-1969
DELEGATION OF POWERS - Collector's Power Under Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act - Notification No. 45 Dated 11-9-1950 - Validity - Interpretation of Section 88 and Section 97 of the Act - Rule 3(1) of the Rules Made Under Section 97 - Validity.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed an application under Section 98 read with Section 47 of the Act for eviction of the respondents alleging illegal occupation of the suit land. The Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the petition and directed the eviction of the respondents. On appeal, the Collector dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner's name does not appear in the Kha??? Pahani. Petitioner challenged this order in a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
1. Notification No. 45 dated 11-9-1950 issued under Section 88 of the Act is ultra vires and void as it is not authorized by the provisions of the Act. 2. Section 88(2) of the Act, which was added by the Amending Act III of 1954, cannot be relied upon to validate the notification as it was not in existence when the notification was issued. 3. Section 7(2) of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act cannot be relied upon to find the meaning of the term 'Collector' appearing in Section 98 of the Act or to authorize the delegation of the Collector's powers to a Deputy Collector. 4. Rule 3(1) of the Rules made under Section 97 of the Act in G.O. No. Ms. 449 (Revenue) dated 13th March, 1957 is ultra vires the State Government as it creates new jurisdiction and adds new authorities apart from what is constituted by the Legislature itself.
Issues: 1. Whether Notification No. 45 dated 11-9-1950 issued under Section 88 of the Act is valid? 2. Whether Section 88(2) of the Act can be relied upon to validate the notification? 3. Whether Section 7(2) of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act can be relied upon to find the meaning of the term 'Collector' appearing in Section 98 of the Act or to authorize the delegation of the Collector's powers to a Deputy Collector? 4. Whether Rule 3(1) of the Rules made under Section 97 of the Act in G.O. No. Ms. 449 (Revenue) dated 13th March, 1957 is valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The delegation of the Collector's powers under Section 98 of the Act to the Revenue Divisional Officer pursuant to Notification No. 45 dated 11-9-1950 is invalid as the notification is ultra vires and void. 2. Section 88 of the Act, as it stood when the notification was issued, did not empower the Government to delegate the Collector's powers to any other officer. 3. Section 7(2) of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act cannot be relied upon to find the meaning of the term 'Collector' appearing in Section 98 of the Act or to authorize the delegation of the Collector's powers to a Deputy Collector as it does not authorize the Government to delegate the Collector's powers to a Deputy Collector for the purpose of deciding quasi-judicial disputes arising under Section 98 of the Act. 4. Rule 3(1) of the Rules made under Section 97 of the Act in G.O. No. Ms. 449 (Revenue) dated 13th March, 1957 is ultra vires the State Government as it creates new jurisdiction and adds new authorities apart from what is constituted by the Legislature itself.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, the orders of both the Tribunals were set aside, and the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to return the petition for presentation to the proper authority, which is the Collector under Section 98 of the Act.
JUDGMENT :
GOPALA RAO EKBOTE, J.:— This revision petition is directed against an order of the District Collector, Khammam given on 12-9-1967 whereby he allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, hereinafter called “the Act”. The material facts in order to appreciate the contention raised before us may briefly be stated.
2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 98 read with Section 47 of the Act for eviction of the respondents alleging inter alia that the petitioner is the pattadar of S. No. 531 measuring 2 acres and 3 guntas and S. No. 532 measuring 3 acre and 2 guntas. The 1st respondent cultivated the said lands in the year 1952 and illegally with the collusion of the patwari got the entry in the village pahani as ‘Kharidi’ in column No. 15. The 1st respondent landholder sold the suit land to one Vellanka Chalapalhi Rao in 1954. It is further alleged that the 1st and 2nd respondents in collusion with the patwari removed the name of the petitioner in the Kh??? Pahani and got inserted the name of the 2nd respondent in column 13 of the Kh??? Pahani. It is contended that these enteries are illegal as there was no sale transaction between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. It is contended that respondents 1 and 2 have been in illegal possession of the land belonging to the petitioner and they are holding the same unauthorisedly. For a few years respondents 3, 4 and 6 were also in occupation of the land illegally. It was thus contended that the occupation of all the respondents of the said land is illegal and unauthorised. It is in these circumstance that the petitioner prayed that the respondents should be summarily ejected and the petitioner put in possession of the suit lands.
3. Respondent No. 6 in his counter denied the allegations made in the petition: He contended that the petitioner bad been dispossessed in 1952. Muta???ion also was effected in favour of respondent no. 2. He claims that he is the landholder and is in rightful possession. The petition therefore is misconceived and ought to be dismissed.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer before whom the petition under section 98 was filed after a proper enquiry allowed the petition and directed the eviction of the respondents.
5. Dissatisfied with that order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the respondents carried the matter in appeal to the Collector. The Collector by his order under revision allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that the petitioner's name does not appear in the Kha??? Pahani. He is not therefore the land holder who can file an application under section 98 of the Act. His petition consequently was dismissed. It is this view that is now challenged in this revision petition.
6. This revision petition first came up for consideration before one of us (Ramachandra Rao, J.). My learned brother thought that the matter it of considerable importance, as it really is, and he therefore directed the matter to be placed before a Bench and that is how the revision petition has come up before us.
7. The contention of Mr. P. Shivashanker, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that under section 98 of the Act once the powers of the Collector hare been delegated to the Revenue Divisional Officer pursuant to a G.O. dated 11-9-1950 and he has exercised the power, it is not open to the Collector, to entertain an appeal against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer who in fact exercised the power which the Collector himself had.
8. During the course of the arguments, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner himself realised that this arguments assumes that the delegation which was effected by the G.O. dated 11-9-1950 is valid. Since this contention arose, we have to consider whether G.O. No. 45 dated 11-9-1950 is valid and hat legal force.
The following is the Government Order:
“No. 45,Dated 11-9-1950.
By virtue of the power
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
