Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Allu Bhaskara Benargi, – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
WP/3835/2020
INAM ABOLITION - REVISION - JURISDICTION - [SECTION 14-A OF THE A.P. (A.A) INAMS (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1956] - SUO MOTO REVISION - POWER OF COMMISSIONER TO ENTERTAIN - AFTER ISSUANCE OF RYOTWARI PATTA - WHETHER PERMISSIBLE - HELD, YES
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the suo moto revision initiated by the 2nd respondent/Commissioner under Section 14-A of the A.P. (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, seeking modification of the ryotwari patta issued in their favor in 1960. They contended that the Commissioner lacked the power to initiate such revision after such a long delay and that the impugned notice was issued in violation of the earlier order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.16002 of 2002.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Commissioner had the power to entertain a suo moto revision under Section 14-A of the Act, even after the issuance of a ryotwari patta. However, the Court directed the Commissioner to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months, giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass an appropriate and reasoned order as per law.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner had the power to entertain a suo moto revision under Section 14-A of the Act, even after the issuance of a ryotwari patta? 2. Whether the impugned notice was issued in violation of the earlier order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.16002 of 2002?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14-A of the Act empowers the Commissioner to entertain a suo moto revision at any time, either on his own motion or on an application made to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity or correctness, legality or propriety of the proceedings taken in regard to the grant of ryotwari pattas. 2. The earlier order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.16002 of 2002 did not bar the Commissioner from exercising his revisional powers under Section 14-A of the Act.
Final Decision: The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: 1. The petitioner is at liberty to file additional grounds that were raised in the present writ petition including the legal grounds regarding power and jurisdiction of the authorities in taking up suo moto revision, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such submission of additional grounds by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent/Commissioner is directed to conclude the enquiry in suo moto revision vide show cause notice CCLA’s Ref.No.VI/68/2010, dated 13.07.2010 within a period of three months thereafter by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate and reasoned order as per law and communicate the same to the petitioners. 2. Basing on the outcome of the suo moto revision, the revenue authorities are directed to act upon with regard to deletion of the petitioners’ agricultural land in an extent of Ac.25.25 cents of dry land in Sy.No.191 of Salur Village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District from the prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908. 3. The authority is also directed to take due note of the fact that after implementing the ryotwari patta in favor of the petitioners whether suot moto revision can be entertained in relation to the said ryotwari patta.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in initiating Suo-Moto Revision vide show cause Notice CCLAs Ref.No.VI/68/2010, Dt.13.07.2010 and subsequent notices issued under Sec.14-A of A.P.(A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 for modification of the Ryotwari patta issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Parvathipuram on 06.09.1960 without having power/Jurisdiction and also in violation of order, dt.24.02.2009 in W.P.No.16002 of 2002, as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice unreasonable and violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to delete the petitioner Agricultural land to an extent of Ac.25.25 Cents of Dry land in Sy.No.191 of Salur Village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of Registration Act 1908…”
2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that, the 2nd respondent in initiating suo moto revision by issuing show cause notice vide CCLA’s Ref.No.VI/68/2010, dated 13.07.2010 and subsequent notice issued under Section 14-A of the A.P. (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 for modification of ryotwari patta issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Parvathipuram on 06.09.1960, without having power/jurisdiction and also in violation of order, dated
24.02.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16002 of 2002.
Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The 5th respondent/Tahsildar filed counter denying the allegations inter alia contending that the 2nd respondent/Commissioner has revisional powers under Section 14-A of the A.P. (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 to entertain at any time either suo moto or an application made to it, call for and examine the records relating to any proceedings taken in this regard for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the regularity or corrections, legality or property of the proceedings and if it appears that such orders should be modified, annulled, revised etc. may pass orders accordingly. The respondents also filed W.A.No.40249 of 2011 against the orders, dated 24.02.2009 in W.P.No.16002 of 2002 and the same is pending. The 2nd respondent has revisional powers to review the decision taken by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inam) Parvathipuram, dated 16.09.1960 and the writ petitioners have right to defend their interest by appearing before the 2nd respondent. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri G.Gopala Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Parvathipuram has issued ryotwari patta on 06.09.1960 in favour of the petitioners’ father, which is placed on record and draw the attention of this Court. Pursuant to the request made for mutation of the revenue records, the Sub Collector recommended for the same vide D.Dis.No.5414/1988, dated 17.09.1988, which is also placed on record and draw the attention of this Court to the same but as the authorities have not considered, the original pattadars made a representation to the Joint Collector, wherein the Joint Collector refused for mutation of their names in the revenue records, vide endorsement, dated 18.06.2002. Aggrieved by the same, they filed W.P.No.16002 of 2002 wherein this Court, quashed the said endorsement and directed the respondents therein to implement the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioners therein, by its order dated
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
