V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner for issue mandamus declaring the order of the Director of Settlement, Government of Andhra Pradesh, hyderabad, dated 25-10-1990 as illegal, improper and arbitrary.

( 2 ) THE preliminary question to which this writ petition gives rise to is, whether the Director of Settlement while exercising powers U/s. 5 (2) of Andhra pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. (herein after referred to as the Act), is vested with the power to remand the matter to the Settlement Officer.

( 3 ) THE brief facts involved in this writ petition are:

( 4 ) THE Settlement Officer by an order dated 7-2-1983 granted a patta to the petitioner in respect of the land measuring Ac. 1. 59 cents in S. No. 108 of akkaramapalli village, Chandragiri taluk of Chittoor district, U/s. 11 (a) of andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1984. This patta granted was sought to be cancelled by the 1st respondent/director through an order dated 10-10-1984 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the patta should not be cancelled since it was granted without verifying the preabolition records and also because the petitioner failed to produce any records in support of the grant. To this notice the petitioner filed his explanation dated 6-11-1984 stating that the Settlement officer after considering the evidence adduced by him, viz. , the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 3, Exs. P-1, P-2, etc:, and after satisfying himself granted patta and, therefore, there are no grounds to cancel the same. Ultimately, Director through the impugned proceedings remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer/2nd respondent for disposal afresh.

( 5 ) IT is this order of remand i. e. , the subject matter of challenge mainly on the ground that Sec. 5 (2) of the Act does not clothe the Director of Settlement with the power to remand and, therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is relevant at this stage to have a look into Sec. 5 (2) of the Act, which reads:"every Settlement Officer shall be subordinate to the Director and shall be guided by such lawful instructions as he may issue from time to time; and the Director shall also have power to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. "

( 6 ) THE above provision thus makes it clear that the Director has power to cancel or revise any order of the Settlement Officer, of course excluding those against which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. The words cancel or revise occurring in the above section are wide enough to take in, the incidental power of remand to the lower authority by the Director while exercising his powers u/s. 5 (2) of the Act, irrespective of the fact whether the revision is a preferred one or taken up suo motu. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a matter wherein an appeal lies to Tribunal so as to disable the Director to cancel or revise, orders U/s. 5 (2) of the Act. In view of this, I am not able to accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Director has no power to remand U/s. 5 (2) of Act. Accordingly, the preliminary question is answered in the affirmative.

( 7 ) IT is next contended by Mr. S. Venkateswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the very proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent, taking up the revision suo motu and issuing the show-cause notice dated 10-10-1984, are neither the resultants of any complaint made nor based upon any material then available with the first respondent, and, therefore, the impugned order is improper and needs to be quashed. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the very impugned order discloses that no record whatsoever was available with the first respondent except the order gr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document