THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.17029 of 2002 Dated:07th October, 2009. Between: Najeebuddin Ghalib ….Petitioner and 1. The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner Land Acquisition, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.17029 of 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Najeebuddin Ghalib under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order No.NA2/182/2002, dated 18.05.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad-1st respondent as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to review the order dated 22.03.2002 passed in Prooc.No.NA2/542/2000. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 166 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short, ‘the Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli’) to review the order passed in NA2/542/2000, dated 22.03.2002 before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent rejected the review application on the ground that Section 166 of the Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli is not extended to the authorities exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, leading to filing of this Writ Petition by Najeebuddin Ghalib are: The petitioner claims to be a G.P.A. holder of legal representatives of Nawab Galib Jung, Laiqud Dowla Bahadur. He filed a representation before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, for release of the properties from the Court of Wards. One of the properties specified is Dream Land Theatre, situated at Club Road, Secunderabad with Cantonment No.221/B. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, after examining the documents produced by the petitioner, released the property in favour of legal heirs of Nawab Galib Jung vide Ref.NA2/183/2000, dated 25.05.2000 in exercise of powers vested under Section 53 of the Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli. Aggrieved by the release order, Khursheed Ali Khan-2nd respondent herein and others filed an appeal before the Government contending that the property in question known as Dream Land Theatre has been purchased by him and Smt.Maher Khatoon under a registered sale deed dated 21.09.1973. The appeal filed by them came to be allowed setting aside the order dated 25.05.2000 and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner of Land Administration. On remand, the Commissioner Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, on re- consideration of the material brought on record and on hearing the parties, proceeded to withdraw the release order. Relevant portion of the release order reads as hereunder: “It is clear from the above circumstantial and forceful documentary evidence that the property in question was sold in the public auction in execution of the decree as is recorded in the Budget notes of the Estate for 1346 and 1348 Faslies corresponding to 1936 and 1938. The petitioners have misrepresented the facts in obtaining release order of the property in question vide Ref.No.NA2/183/2000, dated 25.05.2000. After issue of the Notification No.2290, dt.01.05.1950 followed by release of the properties of Galib-ul-Mulk in favour of the Ward, the order placing the property under the custody of Court of Ward gets revoked. Therefore, it can be construed that the property in question was not under the custody of Court of Wards. The question of re-releasing any property, which is not in its custody by the Court of Wards does not arise. The impugned order issued in NA2/183/2000, dated 25.05.2000 releasing the property in question due to misrepresentation of facts is hereby withdrawn. The case is accordingly disposed of.” The petitioner filed review application before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, invoking the provisions of Section 166 of the Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli. The review application filed by him came to be rejected on the ground that Section 166 of the Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli is not extended to the Authorities exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of A.P. (T.A.) Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli. The order of rejection passed on the review application is assailed in this Writ Petition. The petitioner also calls in question the validity of the proceeding No.NA2/542/2000, dated 22.03.2002. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 1st respondent a n d Sri E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing fo the respondents 2 and 3 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the decree passed in O.S.No.81 of 1932 on the file of the District Judge, Secunderabad is the subject matter of the appeal suit being A.S.No.955 of 1347 Fasli i.e. 1938 A.D. and the parties entered into compromise and in pursuance of the compromise, an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- has been received by the decree holder and therefore, the question of the properties of the judgment debtor being brought to sale in E.P.No.27 of 1936 does not arise. Various other contentions have been raised questioning the validity of the order dated 23.02.2002. 6. Since the order passed on 23.02.2002 by the 1st respondent is an appealable order, the validity or otherwise of the same is not required to be adjudicated in this Writ Petition. When the petitioner has an efficacious remedy by way of appeal provided under the Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli, he cannot invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I decline to consider the validity or otherwise of the order dated 23.02.2002 in this Writ Petition. 7. The other proceeding challenged in the Writ Petition is, rejection of the review application filed by the petitioner. Indisputably the petitioner filed review application before the 1st respondent invoking the provisions of Section 166 of the Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli. The 1st respondent is exercising the powers under the provisions of the Hyderabad Court of Wards Act (Act XII of 1350 Fasli). Under Section 69 of the Act XII of 1350 Fasli, appeals shall be governed by Sections 161, 162, 164 and 165 of the Hyderabald Land Revenue Act (Act VIII of 1317 Fasli). The applicability of Section 166 of the Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli does not find place in Section 69(5) of the Act VIII of 1317 Fasli. For better appreciation, I may refer Section 69 of the Act VIII of 1317 Fasli, which reads as hereunder: “Section 69. 1) An appeal against every order passed under this Act shall lie within 60 days from the date of such order irrespective of whether such an order has been passed in original jurisdiction or in appeal. 2) Appeal against the order of the court shall lie to the Revenue Member. 3) Appeal against the order of the Teluqdar shall lie to the Court. 4) In all other cases first appeal shall lie to the Taluqdar but in no case shall there be a third appeal. 5) Appeals under this section shall be governed by sections 161, 162, 164 and 165 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act No.8 of 1317 Fasli.” When once Section 166 of the Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli is not applicable to the proceedings under the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act (Act VIII of 1317 Fasli), the 1st respondent is justified in rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner. Hence, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the 1st respondent on 18.05.2002. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date: 07th October, 2009. cs