IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 21229 of 2000 Between: 1 Edala Raveender Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, R/o. Ramalingapuram Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Mallela Venkataswamy, S/o. Ramanaiah, R/o. Ramalingapuram Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. 3 Nalabolu Audisesha Reddy, S/o. Basi Reddy, R/o. Ramalingapuram Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. 4 Nalabolu Lalasa, W/o. Late Suryanarayana Reddy, R/o. Ramalingapuram Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. 5 Nalabolu Parandhami Reddy, S/o. Basi Reddy, R/o. Ramalingapuram Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. 6 Nalabolu Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. Basi Reddy, R/o. Ramalingapuram Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner (Appeals), O/o. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthu, Nellore 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1st Respondent in his proceedings BCW.3/696/98 dt. 28-8-2000 confirming the order of the 2nd Respondent in D. Dis. No. B/10397/94 dt. 20-5-98 and the order of the 3rd Respondent in RCG/3119/90 dt. 26-6-94 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, descriminatory and violative of Art. 14, 19 (i) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, setaside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.CHANDRAIAH The Court made the following : ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the proceedings of the first respondent dated 28-08-2000 confirming the order of the second respondent (Joint Collector) dated 20-05-1998 and the order of the third respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) dated 26-06-1994 as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same. The petitioners, six in number, were all assigned small extents of land in Sy.No.294/1 of Pedaputtedu village on the ground that they were landless poor and were eligible for assignment of small extents of land as Sivai Jamadars. While matters stood thus, lease pattas were granted by the Revenue Divisional officer vide his proceedings dated 28-03-1977 including the land under cultivation of the petitioners herein, in favour of some beneficiaries belonging to the scheduled castes. On their claims being rejected by the Joint Collector, and their appeals being dismissed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the petitioners herein carried the matter in revision to the Government which allowed the revision observing that the petitioners were landless poor and were eligible for assignment of Government land and that they should not be evicted even if the lands were required for assignment in favour of the Cooperative Joint Farming Society. The Government, vide memo dated 16-04-1979, directed the Collector to enroll the petitioners as members of the Cooperative Joint Farming Society and further directed him to assign the lands under their cultivation to the petitioners. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer vide his proceedings dated 02-08-1979 allotted the petitioners different extents of land which were hither under their cultivation, duly cancelling the lease granted in favour of others. Aggrieved thereby, some of the beneficiaries filed Writ Petition No.6016 of 1979 and this Court, by order dated 01-12-1985, set aside the order of the Government dated 16-04-1979 as well as the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02-08-1979. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein filed Writ Appeal No.481 of 1986 and the Division Bench, by judgment dated 26-08-1986 while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent it related to the enrolment of the petitioners herein as members of the Cooperative Joint Farming Society, held that the order of the learned single judge in so far as it related to allotment of land was invalid. The Division Bench directed the Government to hold an enquiry after due notices to all the parties interested with regard to the allotment of Ac.2-87 cents to the petitioners herein and to pass appropriate orders within three months. Status quo was directed to be maintained till disposal of the matter by the Government. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer initiated proceedings and called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer regarding the eligibility of the petitioners. The fourth respondent, in his proceedings dated 27-07-1991, observed that petitioners 1 and 3 to 6 were eligible for assignment of land, but as the second petitioner owned Acs.7-00 of land he was not a small farmer. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide proceedings dated 26-06-1994, rejected the claims of the petitioners and directed that their names be deleted as members of the Pedaputtedu Cooperative Joint Farming Society. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector who considered the matter on merits and basing on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the same by his order dated 20-05-1998. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a revision to the first respondent – the Commissioner (Appeals) in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration on 06-07-1998. The first respondent, while admitting the revision petition, initially granted stay on 06-07-1998. Subsequently, by order dated 28- 08-2000, the revision petition was dismissed. When the Mandal Revenue Officer came to the land on 04-11- 2000 to take possession thereof, as the revision petition was dismissed by the first respondent, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the entire history of the case is narrated. It is further contended that, as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court, the Government was required to hold an enquiry, that the Government meant the respondents representing the Government and that they were competent to conduct an enquiry and, therefore, the impugned orders were in compliance with the order of the Division Bench. While Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would raise several grounds, including that the order of the Division Bench of this Court required the Government, and not the Joint Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer, to hold an enquiry and, since the petitioners were admittedly small farmers who have been in possession of the lands, their dispossession is illegal and without justification. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment would seek to sustain the impugned order reiterating that the order of the Division Bench directing the Government to conduct the enquiry meant the Government represented by the respondents, that the order of the first respondent cannot be said to be a non-speaking order and that the impugned order is valid in law. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine all the contentions urged by Sri P.Sridhar Reddy on behalf of the petitioners. Suffice if the relevant portion of the order in Writ Appeal No.481 of 1986 dated 26-08-1986 is taken note of wherein the Division Bench, after taking note of the earlier order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02-08-1979, the order of the Government dated 16-04-1979 and the order of the Government in revision dated 03-08-1979, observed - “……We are also of the opinion that inasmuch as pattas are stated to have been granted to respondents 3 to 18 and some others on 31-08-1977, they should have been given notice before allotment of that land constituting of Ac.2-87 cents is made in favour of the appellants. In that view, we find the learned Single Judge’s order to the extent it relates to the enrolment of the appellants is concerned is valid; but to the extent it relates to the allotment of the land of Ac.2-87 cents, it is invalid. We would direct the Government to hold the enquiry after due notice to all parties interested in the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in regard to the allotment of Ac.2-87 cents to the appellants and pass appropriate orders on the quarter of allotment. In regard to possession, status quo as it obtains today shall be maintained till the disposal of the matter by the Government. ……” It must be borne-in-mind that the Division Bench was conscious of the fact that the impugned order therein was the result of the Revenue Divisional Officer implementing the orders of the Government. The earlier proceedings which, eventually, culminated in the order of the Government being passed on 03-08-1979 formed part of the record before the Division Bench. Whatever may be the interpretation to be placed on the word ‘Government’ which may include its officials at different levels, the Division Bench did not direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold an enquiry and, in such circumstances it was not for the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry or take action in this regard. The order of the Division Bench required the Government i.e. the revisional authorities under para-18 of the Board Standing Orders No.15 to hold the enquiry. The Revenue Divisional Officer could not, therefore, have exercised jurisdiction afresh. Since the Division Bench had directed the Government, (the revisional authority under the Board Standing Orders), to hold an enquiry and take a decision, and even if the action of the Government in having caused an enquiry to be held by another authorities is held to be valid, the final decision could only have been taken by the Government (i.e. the revisional authority) and not the Revenue Divisional Officer. The impugned order of the first respondent, confirming the order of the Joint Collector, who had earlier confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the Government (the revisional authority under the Board Standing Orders) which shall get the matter enquired into by a competent officer but shall take a final decision by itself after hearing all the parties concerned. The entire exercise in this regard, culminating a final order to be passed by the Government, shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since there has been an interim order of status- quo pending for the past decade and half, ends of justice would be met if the said order of status quo is directed to be continued till final orders are passed as aforementioned. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ___​__________________________​ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 15th November, 2008 CVRK