Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BILAL NAZKI, G.YETHIRAJULU
S.Santhanam - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., Revenue Dept - Respondent
Decided On : 02-07-06
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land revenue Act, 1317 – Section 166-B – Appellant – Earlier litigation – Writ petitions and writ appeals nave been heard together, as they raise common questions of law and fact this judgment will be confined only to those cases, which were subject matter of earlier litigation in this Court and also the subject matter of Civil Appeal before the supreme Court and decided by the Supreme court by the judgment titled, Collector and others v. P. Mangamma and other some disputes raised in some writ petitions between the original assignees and the purchasers. There are some disputes, which are inter se original assignees as well. Those writ petitions will be decided separately and this Court would confine itself to the questions, which were already decided in earlier writ appeals and writ petitions and which were subject matter of appeals before the Supreme Court with this preface, the necessary facts of the case :- orders were passed by the District collector, Hyderabad under Section 166-B of the andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land revenue Act, 1317 Fasli cancelling the assignments made in favour of petitioners. These orders were challenged in various writ petitions. Initially, they were challenged in writ petition These writ petitions were decided by a learned Single Judge learned Single Judge remanded the matters back to the Collector after quashing the impugned orders –Held, third judgment is in the case learned single Judge of the High Court distinguished earlier judgments because of the peculiar facts of that case. In that case, the assignment had been cancelled on the ground that some persons had secured land on the ground that they were landless poor. Another judgment relied upon by the learned Government Pleader is in the case of gudepu Sailoo v. Government of A. P. The same principle was followed that, though there was no limitation prescribed, but the power should be exercised in a reasonable period of time and reasonableness of time would depend on the facts of each case next judgment is in the case of g. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition officer, Bangalore. This is a judgment on section 5 of the Limitation Act, where the supreme Court held that when Government files appeals, Courts should have regard to the normal procedural delays in governmental actions court do not consider that this judgment is relevant for the present case judgment relied upon by the learned Government Pleader is v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , Baroda". This judgment has been referred for the purpose of canvassing that principle of purposive construction should be adhered to by the Courts no quarrel with the principle laid down by the Supreme court. But, in our view, it is not relevant for the present controversy last judgment relied upon by the learned Government Pleader is in the case also relates to the principles laid down by the supreme Court earlier – Court allow the writ petition.
( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions and writ appeals nave been heard together, as they raise com mon questions of law and fact. However, this judgment will be confined only to those cases, which were subject matter of earlier litigation in this Court and also the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos. 13010 to 13019 of 1996 and 2692-93 of 1997 before the supreme Court and decided by the Supreme court by the judgment titled, Collector and others v. P. Mangamma and others
( 2 ) THERE are some disputes raised in some writ petitions between the original assignees and the purchasers. There are some disputes, which are inter se original assignees as well. Those writ petitions will be decided separately and this Court would confine itself to the questions, which were already decided in earlier writ appeals and writ petitions and which were subject matter of appeals before the Supreme Court.
( 3 ) NOW, with this preface, the necessary facts of the case :- orders were passed by the District collector, Hyderabad on 18-12-1984 and 17-07-1985 under Section 166-B of the andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act ), cancelling the assignments made in favour of petitioners. These orders were challenged in various writ petitions. Initially, they were challenged in writ petition Nos. 6120 of 1986 and 13097 of 1987. These writ petitions were decided by a learned Single Judge on 04-04-1989. The learned Single Judge remanded the matters back to the Collector after quashing the impugned orders. The petitioners were directed to submit their objections before the authority within two months and the Collector was directed to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. The order was challenged by way of writ appeals being writ appeal Nos. 860,948 and 1015 of 1989 and 560 of 1990. In the meantime, other writ petitions i. e. writ petition Nos. 13874, 13875, 13876, 13877, 13878 and 16220 of 1992 were also filed and were pending. The writ appeals and the writ petitions mentioned, were taken up by a Division Bench of this Court together and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 25th of September 1995. Writ appeals were allowed. Learned Single Judge s order was set aside. The impugned orders of District collector, dated 18-12-1984 and 17-07-1985 were quashed.
( 4 ) WRIT petitions No. 13874,13875,13876, 13877,13878 and 16220 of 1992 had sought a direction from the Court that respondents should not interfere with their possession of the subject land. The learned Division Bench found that the authorities were interfering on the strength of an order, dated 18-12-1984, passed by the Collector and that order had been quashed. Directions were given to the mandal Revenue Officer and the District collector concerned, not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in those petitions. The State took the matter to the supreme Court by way of appeals, of which, a reference was given hereinabove. The supreme Court has remanded the matter back to this Court. In between, we found that in other writ petitions, although all the petitioners are aggrieved of the order of the district Collector cancelling their assignments, but writ petitioners have disputes inter se.
( 5 ) AS we have stated hereinabove, we will confine ourselves to the legality of the impugned orders as passed by the District collector. If thereafter, any disputes remain between the parties, those can be heard and decided separately.
( 6 ) THE orders that are impugned, purports to be the orders under Section 166-B of the tenancy Act. The order dated 18-12-1984 starts with these words; "notice to show cause under Section 166-B of A. P. (Telangana area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli to cancel irregular assignments made in favour of the following assignees was issued and sent to tahsildar, Golconda for service and return. " then, the order noticed that the notices were returned un-served, as the particulars of those person
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
