G. PANDURANGA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition is filed for issue of a writ of mandamus declaring that the order of the Government G.O. Rt. No. 1325 Revenue (H) Department dated 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 stated. 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. Respondent 5 in the writ petition was Mali Patel of the same village at the 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 the Constitution 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 officers 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. Respondent 5 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. Thereupon the petitioner has withdrawn the appeal on 26-6-79.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 R. 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, 1978 touching the issue.