G PANDURANGA RADDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in writ petition. The writ petition is filed for issue of a writ of mandamus declaring that the order of the Government GO Rt No 1325 Revenue (H) Department dt. 29-7-81 confirming the order of the Joint Collector dated 13-6-79 as confirmed by the Commissioner, Land Revenue, dated 26-6-79 is illegal, and without jurisdiction.

(2.) The essential facts may be statedr The petitioner was Police Patel of village Talkondapalli, Kalwakurthi taluk before the abolition of Watans in the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Andhra Pradesh Watans (Abolition) Act, 1978. The 5th respondent in the writ petition was Mali Patel of the some village at time of abolition of watans. Notwithstanding the abolition of watans, the petitioner continued to hold the office of Watandar by virtue of Sec. 3 (2) of the A.P. Watans (Abolition) Act, 1978. The rules have been framed under Art. 309 of fhe Constitution of India In connection with the services of the officers of Telangana area which have been given retrospective effect since 7.12.77. Subsequent to the re-organisation of the village officers in Telangana area both the offices Mali Patel and Police Patel merged Into one office viz,. Patel. Pursuant to the power conferred by the said Rules, the Revenue Divisional Officer Mahaboobnagar selected the petitioner as the Patel by proceedings dated 31.8 78. Pursuant to the said appointment the petitioner was functioning as Patel of the village. The 5th respondent filed appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar and the appeal was allowed by an order dated 13,6.79. As against the said order of the Joint Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue and also filed a petition for stay of the operation of the order of the appellate authority. The Commissioner. Land Revenue took the second appeal on file but declined to grant stay. There upon the petitioner has withdrawn the appeal on 26-6-79. Realising that the withdrawal of the appeal was not proper, the petitioner filed an application on the same day, I e. 26 6-79 for restoration of the appeal. The Commissioner, Land Revenue refused to restore the appeal. Thereupon the petitioner filed a Revision before the Government and during the pendency of the revision the Government granted stay of the order The Government by order dated 29.7.81 in G.O.Rt.No.1325 Revenue Department dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Government, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Commissioner has no power to restore the appeal when once it was withdrawn and the order of the Government refusing to interfere with the order of the Commissioner is valid and proper,

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold contention viz. , that the order of retention of the petitioner as Patel is not an appealable order and in any event the Government should have considered the matter on merits in the revision petition filed under Rule 74. The learned counsel for the respondents sought for sustaining the order of the learned single Judge on the ground that the order selecting the petitioner as Patel is appealable order and the order of the Government declining to interfere in the revision petition is proper in the circumstances. It is necessary to consider the purport of the relevant rules of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1 978 touching the issue. "Rule 9. Appointment in resulting vacancies due to amalgamation or bifurcation of villages; (1) Where two or more villages or portions thereof are grouped or amalgamated so as to form a single new village, or if any village is bifurcated into two or more villages, all Village offices of the villages or portions of villager so grouped, amalgamated or bifurcated shall cease to exiit and fresh offices shall be formed by the Commissioner for the new village or villages as the case may be. (2) While filling in the new village offices formed under sub-rule (1), the appointing authority shall- (1) appoint in the first instance the outgoing village officers and village servants in the respective classes and categories if the number of the newly formed village offices, of the respective classes and categories Is equal to or more than the number of old village offices and (ii) retain those whom he may consider best qualifieo and suitable to discharge the functions of the village office in their respective casses and categories, if the number of newly formed village offices is less than the number of old village offices. 9 A The post of Patel created shall be filled in by retaining person whom the appointing authority considers better qualified and more suitable to discharge the functions of that post of Patel from among the out going holders of the posts of the Police Patel and Mali Patel of that village or part of village or a group of villages as the case may be. 59. Appeal against permanent appointment of village officer:- In case of permanent appointment of village officer in class I made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, an appeal shall lie to the Collector within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of appointment and a second appeal shall fie to the Commissioner within ninety days from the date of receipt of the order of the Collector. 74 Revision (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 Commissioner urder 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 themselves as to the legality regularity or propriety thereof and pass such order in reference thereto as they think fit; (Provisos omitted) (2) The Government may stay the execution of such decision or order pending the exercise of their power under sub-rule (I) in respect thereof.