THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22321 OF 2000 O R D E R This writ petition is ﬁled praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.470, Revenue (Assignment-II) Department, dated 15.07.2000 and to quash the same. The writ petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition and by order dated 12.08.2002 passed by this Court in WPMP No.18051 of 2002 in Writ Petition No.22321 of 2000, petitioners 2 to 8 have been brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner. The aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition states that the writ petitioner was granted a patta under proceedings No.F/451/93 dated 19.11.1997, in pursuance of the policy framed for the beneﬁt of political suﬀerers, (freedom ﬁghters), and a separate patta certiﬁcate bearing M.O.No.F/451/93 dated 19.11.1997 was issued to him. This patta covers an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas of dry agricultural land situated in Survey Nos.281/1, 281/5 and 281/6 of Gumdoor Village, Warangal District. The writ petitioner claimed to be a resident of Mahabubabad Village at the time of ﬁling of the writ petition but stated that earlier, he was a resident of Gumdoor Village and carried on agricultural operations in the lands situated in Survey Nos.281/1, 281/5 and 281/6. It would be noticed that the very same lands were the subject matter of the patta granted to the writ petitioner in the year 1997. According to the writ petitioner, the said lands were in the possession of his family for over 35 years and the same is evidenced by the fact that the graves of his ancestors are found in the said lands. He stated that his farmhouse and cattle sheds were also situated in the said land. It was his case that the Revenue Villages of Gumdoor and Mahabubabad constitute one single Village under Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat. While so, it appears that the assignment made in favour of the writ petitioner was challenged by one Sri R.Chandrasekhar, the fourth respondent in the writ petition, by way of a Revision before the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the ﬁrst respondent herein. The writ petitioner complained that a copy of the said Revision was not made available to him in spite of repeated requests, constraining him to approach this Court by way of Writ Petition No.11172 of 2000. In the said writ petition, the writ petitioner challenged the procedure adopted by the ﬁrst respondent in entertaining and hearing the Revision ﬁled by the fourth respondent. However, even before the said writ petition could be heard on merits, the ﬁrst respondent disposed of the Revision by way of G.O.Ms.No.470, Revenue (Assignment- II) Department, dated 15.07.2000. The said proceedings were challenged by the writ petitioner on various grounds in this writ petition, including one relating to the jurisdiction of the Government to entertain the Revision filed by the fourth respondent. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Mahabubabad Mandal, Warangal District, the third respondent in the writ petition, on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. It is the stand of the authorities that the writ petitioner was not granted a patta under the Laoni Rules, 1950, but under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. The averment of the writ petitioner that he carried on agricultural operations in the subject lands is denied and it is stated that the said lands were in fact vacant. It is also denied that Gumdoor and Mahabubabad Villages constitute one single Village and they are said to be two independent Revenue Villages under the control of one Gram Panchayat. It is further stated that the fourth respondent ﬁled a Revision Petition before the Government in public interest and the Government, being the owner of the land, entertained the Revision by virtue of the powers conferred under BSO-15, Paragraph 18(2). The contention of the writ petitioner that the ﬁrst respondent did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Revision ﬁled by the fourth respondent was sought to be rebutted accordingly. The authorities also drew the attention of this Court to the fact that Writ Petition No.11172 of 2000 was dismissed by this Court on 15.11.2000. However, a copy of the order dated 15.11.2000 was produced before this Court and the same evidences the fact that this Court granted liberty to the writ petitioner to raise the issue with regard to the manner in which the Revision Petition of the fourth respondent was entertained and processed, while assailing the order of the ﬁrst respondent in the said Revision. It was therefore open to the writ petitioner herein to raise all such issues which had been raised by him in the earlier Writ Petition No.11172 of 2000. Continuing with the narration of the facts as reﬂected in the counter aﬃdavit, the third respondent further stated that the writ petitioner was the owner, possessor and pattadar of over 10 acres of land in Edulapusapalli and Rajolu Villages and was therefore not entitled to the grant of a patta as a landless freedom fighter. The fourth respondent in the writ petition put in his appearance through counsel but did not choose to file a counter affidavit. Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. Though the learned counsel appearing for the parties raised various rival contentions, touching upon the facts of the case and the law applicable, it would be noticed that the learned counsel for the Petitioners raised a primary contention that the ﬁrst Respondent did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Petition ﬁled by the fourth Respondent. This contention requires to be adjudicated as a preliminary issue in as much as, none of the other issues sought to be raised would survive for consideration if the Petitioners succeed on this vital issue, which would go to the very root of the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that there is no provision of law authorizing the ﬁrst respondent to entertain the Revision of the fourth respondent directly. He therefore submitted that the order passed by the ﬁrst respondent in the said Revision is a nullity being devoid of jurisdiction. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, would contend that the reference to BSO-15, Paragraph 18(2) in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the third respondent is erroneous and that the Revision Petition was entertained by the ﬁrst respondent under the provisions of Section 166-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. Judgment was reserved in the matter on 16.09.2008, but the case was posted for further arguments on 22.09.2008 and the learned counsel appearing for the parties were given an opportunity to address the Court again on the issue of the jurisdiction of the Government to entertain the Revision Petition filed by the fourth respondent. It is relevant to note that the writ petitioner was granted the subject patta under the Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958, as is evident from the patta itself. The said Rules ﬁnd their source in Section 172 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. However, Section 166-B of the said Act which, according to the learned Government Pleader, was the source of power for the ﬁrst respondent to entertain the Revision Petition ﬁled by the fourth respondent, begins with the rider that it is subject to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 Fasli. Section 166-B reads as hereunder: “166-B. Revision:-- (1) Subject to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 F, the Government or any Revenue oﬃcer not lower in rank to a Collector the Settlement Commissioner of Land Records may call for the record of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and may make suitable order in that behalf; Provided that no order or decision aﬀecting the rights of the ryot shall be modiﬁed or annulled unless the concerned parties are summoned and heard. (2) Every Revenue Oﬃcer lower in rank to a Collector or Settlement Commissioner may call for the records of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and if, in his opinion, any order or decision or, proceedings should be modiﬁed or annulled, he shall put up the ﬁle of the case with his opinion to the Collector or Settlement Commissioner as the case may be. Thereupon the Collector or Settlement Commissioner may pass suitable order under the provisions of sub-section (1). (3) The original order or decision or an authentic copy of the original order or decision sought to be revised shall be ﬁled along with every application for revision.” In view of the rider preﬁxing the Section, it would be necessary to examine the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 Fasli. In this regard, it may be noted that in the Andhra Area, the Board of Revenue was in existence since 20.06.1786 and its functioning was governed by the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1803 and the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Board of Revenue Act, 1894. So far as Telangana Area is concerned, it was only under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 Fasli that a statutory Board of Revenue was constituted, consisting of three members appointed by the Government. Regulation-6 of the 1358 Regulation speaks of the Board’s Appellate and Revisional powers and states to the eﬀect that the Appellate and Revisional powers vested in the Government in the Revenue Department would be exercised by the Board of Revenue and notwithstanding anything contained in the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, no Appeal would lie from the Appellate or Revisional order made by the Board. Thereafter, the Government of Andhra Pradesh acting under Section 122 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 issued G.O.Ms.No.1250, Revenue Department, dated 03.07.1957 providing for a uniﬁed Board of Revenue for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. The Board of Revenue was thereafter abolished by the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue (Replacement by Commissioners) Act, 1977 and the Government appointed separate Commissioners as independent Heads of the Departments. These historical developments would indicate that there is an inextricable link between the Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 Fasli and the Board Standing Orders. These Orders may be categorized into three types. Orders which ﬁnd their origin in a statute partake the ﬂavor of their birth and are construed to be statutory in nature. The executive instructions issued by the Government are the second category. The third variety are the instructions and rules framed by the Board itself with the approval/sanction of the Government for the guidance of subordinate Revenue Authorities. In the present case, G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958, being the Rules framed by the Government under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli would be Statutory Orders relatable to Board Standing Order No.15, dealing with ‘Disposal of land by way of grant for occupation, subject to payment of assessment’. Regulation-6 of the 1358 Regulation clearly manifests that the Government vested its Appellate and Revisional Revenue powers in the Board of Revenue, which thereafter came to be replaced by the Commissioners. The general Revisional Power of the Government under Section 166-B of the 1317 Fasli Act is speciﬁcally made subject to the 1358 Regulation. The import of this would be that this general provision must give way to the special provision made in Regulation-6 of the 1358 Regulations. This view ﬁnds support in the recent judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in ANNAPURNA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY V/s. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1] wherein it was held to the eﬀect that Section 166-B of the Revenue Act of 1317 Fasli is a general provision, whereas the provisions contained in the Prohibition Act (applicable to the facts of that case) are speciﬁc and that when a situation is governed by speciﬁc provisions, it cannot be dealt with under the general provisions. This aspect is further clariﬁed by the fact that BSO- 15, which deals with assignment of lands by the Government, provides for revisional jurisdiction in this regard under Para-18. The said para was subjected to amendment by way of G.O.Ms.No.912, Revenue-B, dated 02.08.1985. The unamended and amended para 18 are re-produced hereunder. UNAMENDED: 1. Order 15 Para 18 reads as follows: ( 1 8 ) Revision:-- (1) The order of the authority making the assignment, if no appeal is presented, or of the appellate authority, if an appeal is disposed of, is ﬁnal and no second appeal shall be admitted. But if, at any time after the passing of the original or appellate decision, the Collector is satisﬁed that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the powers of the oﬃcer who passed it or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or mis-representation he may set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision passed by an oﬃcer subordinate to him. No order should be reversed or modiﬁed adversely to the respondent without giving the respondent a notice to show cause against the action proposed to be taken adversely to him. (2) The State Government, may, at any time, either suo moto or on application made to them, call for and examine the records relating to any decision or order passed or proceeding taken by any authority or oﬃce subordinate to them under the preceding sub-paragraph for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of such decision or order or as to the regularity of such proceeding and pass such order in reference thereto as they think ﬁt. The Government may stay the execution of any such decision, order or proceeding pending the exercise of their powers under this sub-paragraph in respect thereof. AMENDED: “18. Revision: (1) The order of the authority making the assignment, if no appeal is presented, or of the appellate authority, if an appeal is disposed of, is ﬁnal and no second appeal shall be admitted. But it, at any time after the passing of the original or appellate decision, the Collector is satisﬁed that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the power of the oﬃcer who passed it or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or mis-representation he may set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision passed by an oﬃcer sub- ordinate to him. No order should be reversed or modiﬁed adversely to the respondent without giving the respondent a notice to show cause against the action proposed to be taken adversely to him. (2) The Commissioner of Land Revenue may at any time either suo-motu or on an application made to him call for and examine the records relating to any decision or order passed or proceeding taken by the collector under the preceding sub-paragraph for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such decision or order or as to the regularity of such proceeding and pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks ﬁt. No order should be reversed or modiﬁed adversely to the respondent without giving the respondent a notice to show cause against the action proposed to be taken adversely to him. The Commissioner of Land Revenue may stay the execution of any such decision, order or proceedings pending the exercise of his powers under this sub-paragraph in respect thereof. (3) The State Government may at any time, either suo-motu or on an application made to them, call for and examine the records relating to any decision or order passed or proceeding taken by any authority or Oﬃce subordinate to them under the preceding sub-paragraphs for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of such decision or order or as to the regularity of proceeding and pass such order in reference thereto as they think ﬁt. No order should be reversed or modiﬁed adversely to the respondent without giving the respondent a notice to show cause against the action proposed to be taken adversely to him. The Government may stay the execution of any such decision, order or proceeding pending the exercise of their powers under this subparagraph in respect thereof. (4) All revision petitions in darkhast cases should be stamped with a Court fee label to the value of the rupees two.” It would be seen that, both under the unamended as well as the amended versions, it is clear that the State Government is given Revisional jurisdiction, be it suo motu or upon an application, to examine the decision or order passed by the authority or Oﬃce subordinate to it in exercise of its Primary Revisional Jurisdiction. For instance, under the unamended provisions of BSO-15 (para-18), the order of the Assigning Authority is subject to Revision before the Collector under Clause-1. Under Clause-2 thereof, the State Government is given the Revisional Jurisdiction to examine the decision or order passed by the Collector in exercise of his primary revisional jurisdiction under the earlier clause. In the amended provisions, the order of the Assigning Authority is subject to Revision by the Collector under Clause-1 and the Revisional order of the Collector, in turn, is subject to further revisional jurisdiction before the Commissioner of Land Revenue under Clause-2. Under Clause-3, the State Government is given the jurisdictional power, be it suo motu or upon an application, to entertain a Revision against the Revisional order passed by either the Collector or the Commissioner of Revenue under the preceding clauses. The above provisions would show that a hierarchy has been provided for exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the order of the Assigning Authority is not subject to revisional jurisdiction before the Government directly, in the ﬁrst instance. Such an order is to be examined in Revision by the Collector in the ﬁrst instance and thereafter by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. However, under Clause-3 of BSO-15 (Para-18), the Government is given the jurisdiction to entertain a Revision, either suo motu or upon an application, against the revisional orders of the Collector or the Commissioner of Land Revenue, as the case may be. The power so given to the Government is in keeping with the provisions of Section 166-B of the 1317 Fasli Act and the rider attached thereto. This hierarchy obviously has been provided so as to protect the Government from being ﬂooded with applications to exercise revisional jurisdiction in the ﬁrst instance against the primary orders passed by the Assigning Authorities. It is only in speciﬁc cases and that too, after the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, be it by the Collector, the Commissioner of Land Revenue or both, that the Government would exercise its revisional jurisdiction. In the scheme of the provisions as detailed herein above, it was not open to the fourth respondent to directly approach the Government by way of a Revision against the orders of assignment in favour of the writ petitioner. The general power of Revision available to the Government under Section 166-B did not entitle it, losing sight of the rider that the same was subject to the 1358 Regulation, to entertain the said Revision. The ﬁrst respondent therefore erred in entertaining the said Revision and passing the impugned order vide G.O.Ms.No.470, dated 15.07.2000. The said order is ex facie without jurisdiction and is consequently liable to be set aside. In the light of the fact that the ﬁrst respondent was lacking in jurisdiction to entertain the Revision ﬁled by the fourth respondent, it would be neither necessary nor appropriate for this Court to comment upon or adjudicate the merits of the dispute which was raised by way of the said Revision. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.470, Revenue (Assignment-II) Department, dated 15.07.2000 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------- P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J ____SEPTEMBER, 2008 VGSR/PGS (P.D) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22321 OF 2000 ____SEPTEMBER, 2008 [1] (2007 (4) ALD 433)