2021 Supreme(AP) 440

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Kasu Rayapa Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 42973 of 2018
Decided On : 14-07-2021

The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.

Headnote:

ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS ACT, 1971 - REVISION - JURISDICTION - PROCEDURE - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings Revision Petition R.C.No.637 of 2018 D-5 dated 31.10.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal improper unjust and contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to change the entries in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.412/94 of Chamarru Village, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the suit in O.S No.418 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenpalli, Guntur District.

Finding of the Court:

The second respondent/Joint Collector committed an error and in such case, this Court can interfere with such order with a view to put an end to litigation for mutation of names of the petitioner and rival claimants and other interested persons.

Issues: 1. Whether the fourth respondent/Tahsildar, Atchampeta, followed the procedure prescribed under law, while issuing an order. If not, whether the second respondent/Joint Collector is entitled to interfere with the order of the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, who affirmed the order of the fourth respondent/Tahsildar, by exercising power of Revision under Section 9 of the Act.? 2. Whether this Court can exercise power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order of quasi judicial authority to issue Writ of Certiorari in the facts of the case. If so, whether the order passed by the second respondent/Joint Collector is liable to be set-aside, by issuing Writ of Certiorari?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The fourth respondent/Tahsildar did not follow the mandatory procedure, as discussed above and thereby, the second respondent/Joint Collector interfered. But, the defect or wrong done cannot be remedied by allowing the revision, directing to delete the names of this petitioner, since the principle of natural justice was not complied by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar. 2. The second respondent ought to have set-aside the order and remanded the matter to the fourth respondent directing to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Instead of doing so, the second respondent allowed the revision, setting-aside the order passed by the fourth respondent and affirmed by the third respondent. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the second respondent to issue a direction to delete the name of this petitioner while mutating the names of rival claimants is again contrary to the procedure, since Form-VIII notice was not published as mandated under Rule 19(1) of the Rules to avoid any further complications, the second respondent ought to have remanded the matter with a direction to follow the Rules by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar. 3. When there is a serious disputed question regarding acquisition of title to the property to change all entries in the revenue record is a serious illegality committed by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar; affirmed by the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer by the second respondent is not beyond the scope of Section 9 of the Act by the second respondent, while exercising power of revision when the order of the fourth and third respondents is by misreading the material on record and law.

Final Decision: Writ petition is allowed, setting-aside the order of the second respondent/Joint Collector to the extent of the direction to delete the name of this petitioner while concurring with the other findings that the fourth respondent/Tahsildar deviated the procedure mandated under the Act and Rules framed therein, while remanding the matter to the fourth respondent/Tahsildar to dispose of the application of the petitioner afresh, strictly adhering to the procedure mandated under the Act and Rules framed thereunder.