2021 Supreme(AP) 378

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
L. Ramesh - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8883 of 2020
Decided On : 04-08-2021

The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long delay. The State Government cannot issue an order without affording any prior opportunity to the affected parties, as it is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

The High Court held that the impugned memo issued by the State Government withdrawing an earlier memo issued by it, was illegal and arbitrary. The Court held that the State Government did not have the power to review its own orders unless such power was specifically conferred by statute. The Court also held that the State Government could not exercise its power of review after a long delay, and that the impugned memo was issued without affording any prior opportunity to the petitioners, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were the owners of land in different survey numbers situated at Erragunta and Karakambadi villages, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District. The land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1960. The petitioners' predecessors-in-interest were granted rough pattas for the land in 1963. The petitioners purchased the land from their predecessors-in-interest in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The petitioners obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. In 2010, the Joint Collector issued an endorsement directing the respondent authorities to correct the village account and to take possession of the land. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the endorsement. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. In pursuance of the High Court's direction, the Joint Collector passed an order declaring the land as communal (Government Land) and cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the Joint Collector before the Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the CCLA, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department. The Principal Secretary to Government allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Appeals and the Joint Collector. The State Government issued a memo directing the respondent authorities to implement the order of the Principal Secretary to Government. The respondent authorities implemented the order and restored the petitioners' names in the revenue records and issued fresh pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. Subsequently, the State Government issued an impugned memo withdrawing the earlier memo issued by it. The petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned memo.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the impugned memo issued by the State Government withdrawing an earlier memo issued by it, was illegal and arbitrary. The Court held that the State Government did not have the power to review its own orders unless such power was specifically conferred by statute. The Court also held that the State Government could not exercise its power of review after a long delay, and that the impugned memo was issued without affording any prior opportunity to the petitioners, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Issues: 1. Whether the State Government had the power to review its own orders unless such power was specifically conferred by statute? 2. Whether the State Government could exercise its power of review after a long delay? 3. Whether the impugned memo was issued without affording any prior opportunity to the petitioners, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State Government did not have the power to review its own orders unless such power was specifically conferred by statute. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, wherein it was held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. 2. The Court held that the State Government could not exercise its power of review after a long delay. The Court relied on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Koya Veeraju v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Gollaprolu, East Godavari District, wherein it was held that the powers to revise are quasi-judicial in nature. The same shall be exercised within a reasonable period and while exercising shall give valid and acceptable reasons. 3. The Court held that the impugned memo was issued without affording any prior opportunity to the petitioners, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India, wherein it was held that it is obvious that in passing the impugned order of cancellation, the respondents were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and also they were acting in exercise of their statutory powers.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned memo issued by the State Government.