K KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. V ASHWATHANARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the second respondent in writ petition No. 4108 of 1975. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein praying for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the order of the government dated 4-6-1975 made in the following circumstances. The array of the parties will, in this judgement be referred to as in the writ petition.

(2.) On the death of the then permanent karnam of Thummarakuta village, Madnapallle taluk, Chittor District, the Sub-collector, Madanapale appointed the petitioner as Karanam by his order dated 13-7-1974. The second respondent thereupon preferred an appeal to the District Revenue Officer, Chittor, who by his order dated 4-2-1975 set aside the order of the Sub-Collector and appointed the second respondent as the village karnam. The petitioner then preferred a second appeal to the Board of Revenue under R. 61 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969, referred to in this judgement as the Rules. The Board of Revenue dismissed the Second appeal. When the order was made by the Board, no remedy by way of a Revision Petition to the Government was provided under the Rules. But by G. O. Ms. No. 514, Revenue dated 19-4-1975 which was published in the Gazette on 21-4-1975, R. 75-A was added to the Rules, which is in the following terms: "Revision. 75-A (1): The Government may either suo motu or on an application made to them, call for and examine the records relating to any decision or order passed by the board of Revenue under these rules, not being a decision or order staying the execution of any decision or order appealed from or sought to be revised, for the purpose of satisfying to be revised, for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality, regularity or propriety thereof and pass such order in reference thereto as they think fit: Provided that no application for the revision of any such decision or order shall be entertained after the expiry of sixty days from the date of such decision or order: Provided further that the Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any person unless such person has had an opportunity of making a representation. (2) .............. Taking advantage of this Rule, the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Government on 29-5-1975. The Government, however, rejected the revision petition on the ground that the Government had no power to entertain a revision petition on the date when the order was passed by the Board of Revenue.

(3.) Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed the writ petition in which he contended that the government ought to have entertained the revision petition. Our learned brother, Ramachandra Rao, J. held that the Government ought to have entertained the revision petition under R. 75-A. He accordingly quashed the impugned order and directed the government to entertain and dispose of the revision petition. This appeal is directed against the said order.