THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOs. 825 AND 957 OF 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) Since these two appeals were heard together along with the other connected appeal filed by the State in W.A (SR) No. 82947 of 2009 and common objection being raised as to maintainability, hence, they are being taken up for disposal together, though by two different judgments. Heard learned Advocate General on behalf of appellants and Mr Y Ashok Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents/writ petitioners. The facts as arise in the present lis are that the appeal in W A No. 957 of 2002 is filed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri (M), Ranga Reddy district, having aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W P No. 20371 of 1997 dated 26.11.2001, allowing the writ petition, where the respondents herein/writ petitioners sought writ of mandamus seeking direction for restoration of land in Survey No. 197, admeasuring Ac.9.35 guntas, Yapral village, Malkajgiri mandal, Ranga Reddy district, or in the alternative direct the authorities to initiate proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Whereas, the appeal in W A No. 825 of 2002 is filed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri mandal, Ranga Reddy district, aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P No. 17811 of 2001 dated 26.11.2001 allowing the writ petition, where the first respondent herein/writ petitioner sought a writ against the appellant no.2 herein, interalia seeking for a writ of certiorari and to quash the orders passed by the first appellant viz., the Joint Collector in File No.D5/1176/94 dated 21.8.2000, confirming the orders of the appellant no.2 viz., Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri in file ROR/Yapral/2060/93 dated 24.8.1993. In W P No. 20371 of 1997 the claim of the petitioner was that having regard to the fact that the land was claimed by Social Welfare Department, in pursuance of certain projects made by it, which is not created, hence he sought either for restoration of the said land or to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Since the above two writ petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge by a common judgment, hence the appeals filed against the said two orders can be heard together. The claim of the petitioner, who is common in both the writ petitions mentioned above, rest on the footing that his father was owner and pattedar of the land in an extent of Ac.21 in Survey Nos. 196, 197 of Yapral village, Malkajgiri mandal. Since subsequently it was found that his father’s name was not found in the revenue records as pattedar, even though he was recognised as pattedar in all records including the tenancy, he filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer for effecting corrections in the revenue records under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971. however, the Mandal Revenue Officer, who is primary authority constituted thereunder, dismissed the application as per the orders dated 24.8.1993, there upon, the writ petitioner filed a revision before the first appellant herein viz., Joint Collector and the same was also numbered as per the orders dated 21.8.2000. Thus, as stated above, in both these writ petitions the land involved and parties also are virtually one and same. In the other writ petition in W P No. 17811 of 2001, a society was added as third respondent, which is also added as respondent no.2 in one of the appeals, which claims that the said land was purchased by the members of the society from the original owner and was allotted to various persons who are members of the society and who in turn have constructed the buildings and are in occupation of their respective premises, hence, having regard to such nature of claim arising, this Court cannot go into any such claim on behalf of the writ petitioner and necessarily the remedy lies with the appropriate Civil Court. Learned single Judge after taking into consideration the respective pleadings, claims and objections, ultimately allowed both the writ petitions rejecting the objections raised on behalf of the appellants herein including that of the society and set aside both the aforesaid orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer and Joint Collector and in view of the position as claimed by the society and its members, direction was given to the Government to initiate proceedings under the principles of Land Acquisition Act by acquiring the land in question. Hence, these two appeals are being filed by the appellants as shown in the cause title. When the matter came up for hearing, these appeals were also taken up along with other connected matter, as mentioned above and an objection was raised as to the very locus and maintainability of the appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters patent, more so, at the instance of the Joint Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, whose orders dated 21.8.2000 and 24.8.1993 being assailed in the writ petitions. Admittedly, these two authorities are the respective authorities under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 with all the powers to go into the claims of record of rights and pass appropriate orders. The primary authority is Mandal Revenue officer and the revisional authority is Joint Collector, therefore, both these authorities without any demur or dispute are quasi judicial authorities with all the powers and jurisdiction to go into the claims of substantive rights of the parties vis-à-vis any objection either from the Government or any third parties and make a decision thereon. Therefore, these two authorities naturally are on par with regular Court/Tribunal or quasi judicial body with all judicial powers, though in a restricted manner, it can be safely said as quasi judicial to decide upon the rights, therefore, if any claim or objection or right is raised or any right is claimed by the Government, which circumstance is totally different and necessarily the Government has to pursue the remedies and set up the claim in the manner which is known to law but not otherwise. These authorities, therefore which are supposed to be independent quasi judicial bodies, cannot claim to represent the Government or interest of the Government and to carry forward by availing any remedies under the law including under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Necessarily it follows as already held in the connected proceedings in WA (SR) No. 82947 of 2009 that such quasi judicial bodies/authorities would not have any locus to assail their own orders on judicial side and it cannot be termed as aggrieved persons/parties. Admittedly, these two appeals are at the instance of very same authorities except in W P No. 20371 of 1997 where the Collector of Ranga Reddy district is made a respondent no.1. Either at the time of disposal of the writ petitions or prior thereto, no counter affidavits either by the Collector or by any appropriate authorities raising any objection or setting up any claim , right, title or interest of the Government were filed. Further, the entire contest, admittedly by the learned Government Pleader is on behalf of the very same authorities which are under challenge. Yet, it is these appellants now sought to file the appeals as against the orders allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents/writ petitioners, therefore the very appeal is not maintainable, as we have already held in other connected matters nor it can be said that appellants have any locus to prefer any appeal. Coming to the facts of the case and the conclusions as arrived at by the learned Single Judge, it has to be seen that there being no dispute as to the petitioner as son of the original owner as evident from the records in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.21-00 in Sy.No.196 and 197. The entire case was in contract to the merits was sought to be negatived only on the ground that the land is not an agricultural land as the same is not capable of being used for any purpose of agriculture. However, it is borne from the record that the patta stood in their name up to 1959-60 and there is nothing on record to show how the said land has become Sarkari or government. Admittedly, there is no acquisition of personal whatsoever of nature nor any other mode as known to law is pointed out for the State to become the owner. In the absence of any such positive evidence and material in support or any specific case, even it is neither open for the appellants to set forth a claim of government nor would it make the land as that of the agricultural. The learned Single Judge has considered the same in depth by querying as to how the land could become that of government. There was neither any explanation before the learned Single Judge nor before us in spite of such finding by the learned Judge. Therefore, on all the counts as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, we are in entire agreement since we are disposing of these matters on the other ground of maintainability and correctness of the appeal as has been filed and framed. It would suffice to reiterate the findings as arrived by the learned Single Judge as sufficient enough not to warrant any interference in the appeal. After such objection was raised and matter was heard in part, an application has been filed in WAMP No. 2567 of 2009 by the State of A P represented by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy as proposed appellants under Rule 16-A of the Writ Rules, seeking permission to add the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy in W A No. 825 of 2002 by transposing the appellants 1 and 2 as respondents 3 and 4. This application is supported by an affidavit sworn to by Mr. Dana Kishore, who is working as District Collector, Ranga Reddy. A reading of the entire affidavit, there is no reference nor any mention as to the filing of any pleading or counter affidavit by the very same deponent in either of the writ petitions, which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge as long back as on 26.11.2001. However, curiously the said affidavit proceeds in para 3 to5 on the premise that due to the orders passed by the appellants 1 and 2 /Joint Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, the State was vested with the title to property in dispute and the writ petitioners have not made the State as party and said defect continued even in the writ appeal, though the state is a party being adversely affected and relied on the principle “no order adverse to a party should be passed without hearing him’ In para 4 it is stated that appellants 1 and 2 viz., Joint Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, admittedly being quasi judicial authorities, cannot prefer an appeal against the decision rendered by themselves, therefore in the interest of justice, it is essential that State be made party in the writ appeal. Further in para 5, it is stated that objection as to maintainability was never raised at the time of admission or thereafter and the same was raised at the stage of hearing of the appeal. That the interest of justice require that the appellant be permitted to make necessary amendments including amending the cause title and transposition of the parties is permissible even at the appellate stage, hence the said application. The application in W A M P NO. 2567 of 2009 was contested and opposed on behalf of the writ petitioners/respondents as being belated, totally lacking either bonafides much less merits nor coming out with any proper explanation for selleping over the matter all along. We have considered the very same objection in the connected proceedings in WA(SR) No. 82947 of 2009 and we have given the reasons also as to how and why such appeals at the instance of quasi judicial authorities under particular legislation have no locus, therefore appeal itself held to be not maintainable. Even similar such applications in WAMP Nos. 2011, 2240, 2318 and 2575 of 2009 are dismissed. Following the same and for self same reasons, we hold that the present appeals in W A Nos. 825 and 957 of 2002 are not maintainable and accordingly the same are hereby dismissed. Consequently, WAMP No. 2567 of 2009 stands dismissed. No costs. ________________ B PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ SANJAY KUMAR,J DATE: -Aug, 2010 tvk LR copy to be marked tvk