IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11564 of 2001 Between: Vadde Laxmaiah @ Pedda Laxmaiah, S/o. Pedda Ramanna, R/o. Adivi Ajilapur Village, Devarkadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar. 2 The District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Devarkadra. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled along with the writ petition the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the Proceedings No.B1/7998/1995, dated 30.08.1996 on the ﬁle of District Revenue Oﬃcer, Mahabubnagar, relating to cancellation of patta of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.94, admeasuring Ac.3-00 guntas situated at Adivi Ajilapur Village, Devarkadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, without conducting any enquiry as informed through impugned Proceedings No.B/84/2000, dated 13.01.2000 on the ﬁle of Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Devarkadra, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 300-A of Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to issue pattadar passbook to the petitioner land as per the assignment dated 24.11.1992 granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Devarkadra, by allowing the petitioner to continue in possession of the assignment. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.RAJ KUMAR RUDRA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.11564 OF 2001 O R D E R This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the proceedings of the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Mahabubnagar, the second respondent herein, bearing No.B1/7998/1995, dated 30.08.1996 cancelling the patta granted to the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3-00 guntas in Sy.No.94 of Adivi Ajilapur Village, Devarkadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The case of the petitioner as demonstrated by the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition is as hereunder: The subject land admeasuring Ac.3-00 guntas in Sy.No.94 of Adivi Ajilapur Village, Devarkadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, is said to have been in the possession of the petitioner and his family since prior to the year 1960. The said land was brought into cultivation by the petitioner and his family by developing the same. It is stated that the revenue records from 1963-64 onwards reﬂect the name of the petitioner’s father in the ‘possession’ column and such entries are found in the revenue records upto the year 1987-88. The petitioner claimed that after the death of his father, he continued in possession of the subject land duly paying land revenue to the Government. The petitioner was granted a patta certiﬁcate in respect of the subject land by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Devarkadra, the third respondent herein, in the year 1992. His name was also entered into the revenue records duly carrying out the mutation in his favour. It is the case of the petitioner that he made an application on 11.01.2000 for issuance of a pattadar passbook and it was only when the same was rejected by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Devarkadra, by his proceedings dated 13.01.2000, the petitioner came to know that the respondent authorities had cancelled his patta on the ground that the subject land was Shikam land. Thereafter, he obtained a copy of the order dated 30.08.1996 passed by the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Mahabubnagar, cancelling his patta. It is his grievance that he was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity by the said Authority before passing the order and in any event, the said oﬃcer did not have the authority in law to pass the said order. The petitioner also sought to raise the plea that he had perfected his title over the subject land through adverse possession. It is stated that the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.1950 of 2001 earlier, questioning the proceedings dated 13.01.2000 issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Devarkadra, rejecting his request for issuance of a pattadar passbook. It is further stated that the said writ petition was withdrawn as the petitioner was not in a position to place before the Court the proceedings dated 30.08.1996, impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner challenges the validity of the proceedings dated 30.08.1996 in the present writ petition on the ground that the same are without the authority of law and are in violation of the principles of natural justice. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Devarkadra Mandal, admitting to the fact that the petitioner and prior to him, his father, had been in possession of the subject land since the year 1963. It is also admitted that they paid land revenue in respect of the subject land. The issuance of the D-Form patta in the name of the petitioner was also accepted. It is further stated that the subject land was classiﬁed as Shikam land being part of the tank-bed of Krishnadevaraya Cheruvu and was not amenable to assignment as per the restrictions imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue Department, dated 25.07.1958. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the patta granted to the petitioner by issuing a show-cause notice in Proceedings No.B1/7998/1995, dated 02.12.1995. The said show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 27.01.1996, but the petitioner failed to respond to the same. Accordingly, the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Mahabubnagar, under the proceedings dated 30.08.1996 cancelled the assignment made in favour of the petitioner and directed the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Devarkadra, to resume the possession of the land. It is also stated that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer recorded the statement of the petitioner to the eﬀect that the petitioner had no objection to hand over the possession of the land to the authorities. This statement is said to have been recorded by him on 21.09.1996. It is further stated that the petitioner refused to receive the cancellation proceedings dated 30.08.1996 and accordingly the same was served by aﬃxation to the premises in the presence of the witnesses as recorded in the panchanama dated 13.11.1996. Along with the counter, the respondents ﬁled copies of the proceedings mentioned above. It is no doubt true that the petitioner received a copy of the show-cause notice dated 02.12.1995 as is evidenced by his left thumb impression thereupon and the endorsement of the Village Administrative Oﬃcer stating to the eﬀect that the said service was made on 27.01.1996. However, the inaction on the part of the petitioner to respond to the said show-cause notice may not be of signiﬁcance in the present adjudication in as much as the petitioner challenges the validity of the impugned proceedings dated 30.08.1996 on the ground of jurisdiction and lack of authority. Another aspect which requires to be noticed is that the show-cause notice dated 02.12.1995 was issued in the name of the Collector, Mahabubnagar, while the impugned proceedings are passed by the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Mahabubnagar. It is also to be noted that the said proceedings were issued in exercise of revisional power under Section 166-B(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short, ‘the Act of 1317F’). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Mahabubnagar, did not have the jurisdiction to exercise revisional power under Section 166-B of the Act of 1317F. He drew the attention of the Court to the fact that only the Collector or the Settlement Commissioner of Land Records could exercise such power as per the wording of the Section and it was not open to the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Mahabubnagar, to exercise such revisional power for the purpose of cancelling the petitioner’s patta. It is also contended that in the light of the speciﬁc revisional power available for cancellation of the assignment being Board Standing Order 15 (for short, ‘BSO-15’), it was not open to the authorities to exercise the general power available under Section 166-B of the Act of 1317F. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was deprived of the right of an Appeal in view of the fact that the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Mahabubnagar, had exercised jurisdiction in the matter. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the subject land ought not to have been assigned in the light of the clear prohibition in respect of tank-bed lands, which was for the purpose of protecting the environment and ecology. He therefore submitted that the cancellation of the assignment in favour of the petitioner was lawful and valid and did not warrant intervention by this Court. Though there is an averment in the counter to the eﬀect that the possession of the subject land was taken from the petitioner and his own statement dated 21.09.1996 is relied upon, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same was concocted and that the possession of the land still continued to be with the petitioner. This Court, by an order dated 14.06.2001 in WPMP No.14334 of 2001 in WP No.11564 of 2001, directed status quo to be maintained. On the face of it, the sequence of events as narrated by the respondents does not commend itself to acceptance. On the one hand, the respondents would have it that the petitioner refused to accept the impugned proceedings constraining them to eﬀect service through aﬃxation, while on the other it is their case that the petitioner voluntarily handed over the possession on 21.09.1996. Further, it is not explained as to why the petitioner would have delivered possession on 21.09.1996 when the impugned proceedings were not served upon him till 13.11.1996. These discrepancies on facts clearly indicate that the delivery of possession by the petitioner in terms of the averments in the counter-aﬃdavit appears to be highly doubtful. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the impugned proceedings dated 30.08.1996 on the grounds of jurisdiction and lack of authority of law. He submitted that the District Revenue Officer did not have the jurisdiction to exercise revisional powers under Section 166-B of the Act of 1317F, as is evident from the wording of that Section which vests such revisional powers in the Collector or the Settlement Commissioner of Land Records. He contended that the impugned proceedings issued in exercise of Section166-B revisional powers by the District Revenue Oﬃcer were therefore unsustainable, being completely lacking in jurisdiction. This seemingly attractive argument is, however, not tenable in law. It would be relevant to notice that a learned Judge of this Court had occasion to deal with this very issue in VELUPADAS VEERASWAMY v. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS [1] and held that in view of the delegation of the powers of the Collector under the Act of 1317F, by way of the A.P. Collector’s Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961, the contention that the District Revenue Oﬃcer of the District is not competent to exercise powers under Section 166-B of the Act of 1317F cannot be countenanced. In the light of the view expressed by this Court in the above Judgment, the submission in this regard made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the exercise of the general revisional power under Section 166-B of the Act of 1317F was invalid and unsustainable as the subject, being the cancellation of the petitioner’s ‘D’ Form Patta was covered by BSO-15. He submitted that the special provision excluded the applicability of the general provision and accordingly, the impugned proceedings could not be sustained. I ﬁnd substantial force in this submission of the learned counsel. The petitioner’s ‘D’ Form Patta was obviously issued under the assignment power of the State traceable to BSO-15. Paragraph 18 of BSO-15 provides power to the Collector to set aside, cancel or modify an order of assignment if he is satisﬁed that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that it has been passed under a mistake of fact, amongst other grounds. Paragraph 18 of BSO-15 also provides a hierarchy of remedies by way of revision against such an order setting aside, cancelling or modifying an order of assignment. It is the case of the respondents that the assignment in favour of the petitioner was invalid as the land so assigned, being shikam land was not amenable to assignment as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. Thus, if the assignment in favour of the petitioner was made, overlooking the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958, leading to a material irregularity in the procedure or it was purely owing to a ‘mistake of fact’ on the part of the authorities, the case falls squarely within the four corners of Paragraph 18 of BSO-15. The question is whether the exercise of the general revisional power under Section 166-B of the Act of 1317F can be held to be valid in the light of the speciﬁc provision made in Paragraph 18 of BSO-15 covering the petitioner’s case. In this regard, it is relevant to note that in ANNAPURNA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY, HYDERABAD v. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD AND ANTOHER[2], a learned Judge of this Court, while dealing with an instance of exercise of general revisional power under Section 166-B of the Act of 1317F in a situation attracting the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, held that it is trite to state that when a situation is governed by speciﬁc provisions, it cannot be dealt with under the general provisions. The learned Judge reiterated this view in his later Judgment in TATIKONDA SADASHIV v. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS[3] which involved the exercise of Section 166-B revisional power in a fact situation attracting the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. I ﬁnd myself in complete agreement with the opinion expressed in the above Judgments. In the light of the special provision and procedure prescribed in Paragraph 18 of BSO-15, it was not proper on the part of the authorities to resort to the general revisional power under Section 166-B of the Act of 1317F. The impugned proceedings dated 30.08.1996 are therefore without the authority of law and are liable to be set aside. It is, however, made clear that it is always open to the respondent authorities to initiate action in strict accordance with law to cancel the assignment made in favour of the petitioner if necessary grounds exist to do so. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------- P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 24TH OCTOBER, 2008 PGS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.11564 of 2001 24th OCTOBER, 2008 [1] 2007 (1) ALD 435 [2] 2007 (4) ALD 433 [3] 2008 (3) ALD 788