IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1175 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/08/2008 in WP NO : 16582 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Jangam Sangaiah S/o. Shantaiah R/o. Chellapur Village, Dubbaka Mandal, Medak District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District. 2 Tahsildar, Dubbaka, Medak District. 3 Kondi Raji Reddy S/o. Linga Reddy R/o. Chellapur Village, Dubbaka Mandal, Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.A.ANASUYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 1175 OF 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellant herein is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, who by way of this appeal seeks to assail the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No. 16582 of 2008 dated 12 th August, 2008, dismissing the writ petition, where the petitioner sought for writ of mandamus assailing the orders passed by the ﬁrst respondent /Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer in File No.A/2041/2004 dated 24.4.2008 , as illegal and without jurisdiction. The claim of the appellant as set out in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition is that land admeasuring Ac.2.03 guntas, Ac.0.15 Gunas, Ac.4.31 Guntas and Ac.6.09 Guntas in survey Nos. 564, 591, 598 and 599 respectively at Chellapur village, Dubbaka mandal, Medak district stands in the name of his grand father viz., Jangam Sangaiah in the revenue records, who later expired in the year 1954. Subsequently, the name of the appellant’s father viz., Jangam Shantaiah was recorded as Pattedar/Inamdar and possessor and thus he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. As per the entries made in the Khasra Pahani at column no.7, it was mentioned as Inam Land, therefore in an application ﬁled by his father under Section 4 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 the competent authority /Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer/ﬁrst respondent herein has conducted an enquiry as contemplated under section 10 of the Act and granted Occupancy Certiﬁcate as per the proceedings in File D.Dis No. F/2710/88 dated 7.7.1988 and the said order has become ﬁnal, since there was neither any claim from any quarter nor was it challenged. However, now on an application stated to have been ﬁled by the contesting respondent no.3 herein who according to the appellant is in no way connected or concerned with the subject land, seeking for correction of the entries in the Revenue records stating that the land belongs to an institution viz., Someshwaralayam Temple and same is service Inam land and same was transferred in the name of Jangam Sangaiah who was Archaka at the relevant point of time. The said application was ﬁled by the third respondent where he only sought for correction of the revenue entries, however, there was no challenge or any dispute being raised as against the Occupancy Certiﬁcate granted in favour of the appellant’s father. The said application was virtually treated by the ﬁrst respondent as if an appeal against orders granting occupancy rights and now impugned orders have been passed in ﬁle No.A/2041/2004 dated 24.4.2008. The ﬁrst respondent allowed the same setting at naught the occupancy rights and to make consequent changes in the revenue entries by the preliminary authority viz., Mandal Revenue Officer. As contended in the writ petition, neither under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971, the Revenue Divisional oﬃcer/ﬁrst respondent is the competent authority nor recording authority to entertain any such application, since only he is an appellate authority as provided thereunder in Section 5 (v) and therefore the very application could not have been treated as if for change of entries therein. Further the ﬁrst respondent is also a primary authority under the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, who is competent to recognize and grant occupancy rights and consequently the certiﬁcate and since the certiﬁcate was already granted in the name of the appellant’s father, he himself could not have entertained any such application nor treated the same as an appeal against his own orders and set aside the occupancy certiﬁcate issued in favour of the father of the appellant. Therefore, either way, the impugned orders of the ﬁrst respondent in canceling the occupancy certiﬁcate are totally without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. On the aforesaid contentions as put-forth by the appellant, the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same at the admission stage, mainly on the ground that the appellant has got a remedy of appeal available under Section 24 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and therefore granted liberty to avail such remedy and further directed that on such ﬁling of an appeal, the same shall be entertained, considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant taking us through the entire case, as set up in the writ aﬃdavit contended that the impugned orders are totally without jurisdiction since the ﬁrst respondent who is competent authority at the primary level, does not have neither the power to entertain the appeal nor even to review his own orders, more so in the absence of any speciﬁc provision provided under the provisions of the Act. Further it was also the case that even under the provisions of A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, no such application could have been entertained by the first respondent. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that having regard to the liberty as provided for the appellant to avail the remedy of appeal, all such questions can be ably raised, agitated and considered from a proper perspective by the appellate authority and therefore the appellant cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having considered the submissions on either side and on perusal of the material, the point which arises for consideration is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, the impugned orders of the ﬁrst respondent are valid in law. The facts and event as set-forth in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition are not much in dispute. The fact that the entries stood in the name of the appellant’s grand father in the revenue records, who died in the year 1954 and subsequently the same being reiterated in the Khasra Pahani and further even the grant of Occupancy Certiﬁcate under section 4 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 in favour of the appellant’s father as on 7.7.1988 is also not in dispute nor there is any dispute as to the possession of the land with the appellant and prior to him with his father and grand father and no doubt the third respondent by way of the application, in pursuance of which the impugned orders came to be passed sought for correction of the entries on the ground that the land belongs to an institution/temple and same being a service Inam Land and it was wrongly transferred in the name of the Archaka. The said application was treated by the ﬁrst respondent herein as an appeal and ultimately passed the impugned orders canceling the Occupancy Certificate. Without going into the merits of the matter, the competent authority for recognizing the rights and grant of Occupancy Certiﬁcate is Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer/ﬁrst respondent herein, who after regular enquiry as contemplated under section 10 of the Act, has to grant such certiﬁcates. Admittedly, in the present case, such a certiﬁcate was granted on 7.7.1988 and it remained unchallenged by any person including the third respondent herein and therefore necessarily it follows that such proceedings have become ﬁnal, conclusive and binding and they cannot be challenged except by way of remedies as provided for under the law, i.e., either by a regular appeal or revision etc. There is no speciﬁc provision provided for under the provisions of the said Act providing for a review of any orders by any of the authorities under the Act. It is now well established that power of review has to be necessarily conferred only by the Statute and without which, the question of entertaining any such application or exercising the powers of like manner, does not arise and any such attempt would be totally without any jurisdiction. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. S.N.Goyal[1] held that “once an authority exercising quasi-judicial power takes a ﬁnal decision, it cannot review its decision unless the relevant statute or rules permit such review.” Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, having regard to the orders passed on 7.7.1988, which have become ﬁnal, the ﬁrst respondent could not have any such power, be it by a review or otherwise. Further the very attempt as made by him to treat it as an appeal is more in the teeth of the very provisions of the said Act, especially having regard to the speciﬁc remedies provided thereunder and the hierarchy of authorities as constituted. That apart, entertaining such an application by himself as an appeal is quite staring and contrary to the basic cannons of law. It is needless to reiterate the well established principles that no one can sit over against his own orders and therefore, he could not have even neither entertained any appeal nor treated the same as appeal and dispose of. Therefore either way, the entire proceedings from the very inception of entertaining of such an application and treating the same either as review or an appeal, are wholly prima facie without jurisdiction. Coming to the objection raised by the learned Government Pleader in regard to the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under section 24 of the Act, there is no doubt about such proposition. However, the fact remains that such power cannot put against any citizen especially where the impugned action is quite patently without jurisdiction. Hence, we do not see any merits in such objection. For the foregoing reasons, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12 th August, 2008 in W.P No. 16582 of 2008 are set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. The writ petition is admitted. Issue Rule nisi and call for records. Pending disposal of the writ petition, there shall be stay of all further proceedings pursuant to orders passed by the ﬁrst respondent in File No.A/2041/2004 dated 24.4.2008. List the writ petition before the regular Court. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J DATE: 25-09-2008 TVK [1] 2008 (8) SCC PAGE 92