IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 17792 of 2008 Between: 1 N.Badri Narayana S/o.Venkateswarlu R/o.40-1-60,Tangellakasim Street Near B.V.S.Thatre,Ongole ,Prakasam District 2 N.Yamini W/o.Badiri Narayana R/o.40-1-60,Tangellakasim Street Near B.V.S.Thatre,Ongole ,Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Collector, Prakasam district 2 The Tahsildar, Ongole, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring issuance of Form-2 Notice bearing Nos.RCB 4/2008 ,RCB 14/08,and RCB.56/07 dated 29.2.2008 for the lands covered by Survey Nos.459,460,and 461 of Koppalu village, Ongole Mandal as illegal, contrary to the provisons of the AP Assigned (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and consequently restrain the respondents from proceedings further under AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977 against the petitioners for Sy.Nos.459 and 460 and 461 of Koppolu village, Ongole Mandal,Prakasam District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 17792 of 2008 02-07-2009 Oral Order: Notice in Form No-2 bearing reference No. Rc. B4/08 dated 29-02-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioners to show cause why they should not be summarily evicted from the lands specified in the notice in Koppolu village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasham District, is assailed in this writ petition by way of a writ in the nature of Prohibition, though sought as a writ of Mandamus. The petitioners assert that the land in question of an extent of Ac.15.37 cents was in the possession and enjoyment of one Koti Lingam @ Kotigadu. At the time of resurvey and settlement the name of Kotigadu was entered in the revenue records, in 1938. The grant in favour of Kotigadu was without any condition as to prohibition of alienation. The petitioners assert that the land is ‘assigned land’ within the meaning of the said expression as defined in Section 2 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). On Kotigadu’s death, his several heirs inherited the property and obtained mutation of smaller extents (of the larger extent of Ac.15-37 cents) in their respective names in the revenue records. The petitioners by registered sale deeds executed in the year 2004 by the heirs of the original owner – Kotigadu obtained title and consequent possession of the property and are continuing in possession since then. The writ petition is filed asserting that since the lands owned and possessed by the petitioners are not assigned lands within the meaning of the provisions of the Act, the 2nd respondent suffers an inherent and patent lack of jurisdiction in issuing the show cause notice and therefore this writ petition to interdict further proceedings by the 2nd respondent, is instituted. The fundamental principles as to interference with the decisions of the administrative or quasi-judicial authorities or statutory authorities is fairly well settled to warrant an idle parade of familiar learning. The decision of the Supreme Court in Desika Charyulu v. State of A.P.1 is the locus classicus on the issue. Sri Rajagopala Ayyangar, J speaking on behalf of the Constitution Bench quoted with approval the following classic statement of Lord Esher enunciated by Lord Esher in The Queen v. The Commissioner for Special purposes of the Income Tax (1888) 21 QBD 313: “When an inferior court or tribunal or body, which has to exercise the power of deciding facts, is first established by Act of Parliament, the legislature has to consider what powers it will give that tribunal or body. It may in effect say that, if a certain state of facts exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things, it shall have jurisdiction to do such things, but not otherwise. There it is not for them conclusively to decide whether that state of facts exists, and, if they exercise the jurisdiction without its existence, what they do may be questioned and it will be held that they have acted without jurisdiction. But there is another state of things which may exist. The legislature may intrust the tribunal or body with a jurisdiction, which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction, on finding that it does exist, to proceed further or do something more. When the legislature are establishing such a tribunal or body with limited jurisdiction, they also have to consider, whatever jurisdiction they give them, whether there shall be any appeal from their decision, for otherwise there will be none. In the second of the two cases I have mentioned it is an erroneous application of the formula to say that the tribunal cannot give themselves jurisdiction by wrongly deciding certain facts to exist, because the legislature gave them jurisdiction to determine all the facts, including the existence of the preliminary facts on which the further exercise of their jurisdiction depends, and if they were given jurisdiction so to decide, without any appeal being given, there is no appeal from such exercise of their jurisdiction.” The second respondent is the competent authority under the provisions of the Act to initiate appropriate proceedings. As the competent authority, the 2nd respondent is consecrated the jurisdiction to decide both the jurisdictional fact as to whether the land is ‘assigned land’ as defined in Section 2 (1) of the Act; and further if it is ‘assigned land’ whether the possession of the petitioners of such assigned land is in transgression of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The determination of whether the land is ‘assigned land’ constitutes a determination of a jurisdictional fact which is within the ken of the 2nd respondent. An error on this preliminary jurisdictional fact is an error that may be corrected either in judicial review or before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The error, if any, by the 2nd respondent on the issue whether there has been a transgression by the petitioners’ possession of ‘assigned land’ would be an error within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. As the jurisdiction to determine the preliminary and jurisdictional fact inheres in the 2nd respondent, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, but would relegate the petitioners to pursue with the 2nd respondent with liberty to lodge appropriate objections. The petitioners may submit a detailed explanation on the factual and applicable legal aspects by way of a representation or by a memorandum of written arguments, before the 2nd respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 2nd respondent shall after considering the objections or memorandum of written submissions filed by the petitioners, pass appropriate orders duly dealing with the several objections and contentions, on fact and law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 02-07-2009 Pvks 1 AIR 1964 SC 807