Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
N. Venkata Subbamma – Appellant
Versus
The Joint collector, Y.S.R. Kadapa and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 11029 of 2013
Decided On : 07-03-2024
(A) Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 - Section 5(5) - Jurisdiction of Revenue Divisional Officer - The petitioner challenged the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector regarding land assignment, claiming lack of jurisdiction in the orders passed. The court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer's suo motu exercise of power was illegal, but the Joint Collector's revisional authority was valid as it addressed fraudulent claims over government land. (Paras 10, 18, 22, 29)
(B) Fraud - The court emphasized that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and that authorities must act to prevent fraudulent claims over government land. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, claiming land assignment, faced opposition from the 4th respondent, who alleged prior assignment. The Revenue Divisional Officer canceled the petitioner's passbook, leading to a revision by the Joint Collector, which was contested in this writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that both parties were attempting to mislead authorities regarding land ownership and upheld the Joint Collector's decision to resume the land for proper assignment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector were within jurisdiction, particularly regarding the suo motu exercise of power.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the Revenue Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to act suo motu, the Joint Collector's revisional powers were valid in addressing fraudulent claims.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Sri B. Abhay Jain, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents 1 to 3.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the orders in Reference LRDT/1600/2009, dated 01.02.2010, passed by the respondent No. 2 and the consequential orders in D.Dis.(E.3)/958/2010, dated 20.03.2013, passed by the respondent No. 1-Joint Collector under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short "the Act, 1971") read with the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Pattadar and Pass Book Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules, 1989").
3. The petitioner's case is that she being landless poor, on her application, was granted the land in an extent of Ac.4.51 cents in Sy. No. 542/1 of Tippaiahpalli Village, Pullampet Mandal, Y.S.R. District by way of allotment in the year 1980. The revenue records were also mutated in her name and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in the year 1995. The 4th respondent viz., Marripalli Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Venkata Ramaiah filed some complaint inter alia on the allegations that the subject land was assigned in her favour through D.K.T. Patta No. 2823/70 dated 10.06.1970 and the pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued mistakenly in favour of the petitioner. The 4th respondent requested to issue pattadar pass book and the title deeds in her favour.
4. On the complaint of the 4th respondent, report from Tahsildar was called which was submitted and on perusal thereof, the Revenue Divisional Officer-2nd respondent cancelled the pattadar passbook which was in favour of the petitioner and further directed the Tahsildar to submit the proposals for grant of duplicate pattadar passbooks/title deeds in favour of the 4th respondent/the original assignee. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is dated 01.02.2010. The petitioner filed the revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. The Joint Collector set aside the proceedings of the order dated 01.02.2010 and directed the Tahsildar to resume the land and incorporate the changes in the revenue records and also to take necessary action for fresh assignment to the eligible beneficiaries as per rules in force.
5. The petitioner's revision was dismissed. However, the order dated 01.02.2010, in favour of the 4th respondent was also set aside vide order dated 20.03.2013.
6. The Joint Collector-1st respondent did not accept the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the 4th respondent which was accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer-2nd respondent directing the Tahsildar-3rd respondent to submit the proposal in favour of the 4th respondent as original assignee, was also rejected. The Joint Collector concluded that neither the appellant nor the respondents (i.e the petitioner and 4th respondent) produced any documentary evidence to show that the land in question was enjoyed by them ever before. There was no proof that the 4th respondent was the original assignee. She was also not residing in the village. The Joint Collector arrived at the conclusion, on perusal of records that, both (Petitioner and the 4th respondent) were trying to grab the Government land by misleading the revenue authorities.
7. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed.
8. The 4th respondent did not challenge the order.
9. The present writ petition was dismissed against the 4th respondent for default of the petitioner in complying with the court's order dated 11.04.2017, in terms thereof.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass order dated 01.02.2010 on the complaint of the 4th respondent. The Revenue Divisional Officer could not entertain the same as an appeal against the order of assignment vide D.K.T. No. 2823/70 dated
The court ruled that while the Revenue Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to act suo motu, the Joint Collector's revisional powers were valid in addressing fraudulent claims over government land.
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
Claims for land ownership after significant delays must be addressed by civil courts, as administrative bodies cannot adjudicate on disputed titles without violating established rights.
Point of law: Any person aggrieved by any order made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Act or these rules may, within three months of the dat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice and the prescribed method and procedure when exercising statutory powers.
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
