BHEEMAPPA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this writ petition is whether the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has got power to entertain a revision petition against the order of a Collector passed in exercise of his appellate powers in respect of resumption proceedings under Rule 10 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974.

(2.) The facts of the case may be stated thus: In respect of the holding of one Damodar Reddy, the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Agricultural Holdings) Act I of 1973 found that he has to surrende 3-63 cents as he is owning excese over the ceiling area .cordingly the said land was surrendered by him to the authorise Thereafter the land was assigned to the 5th respondent on the representationi that he was a landlesss poor. However on enquiry the Revenue Divisionl Officer who is the 3rd respondent herein resumed the land and cancelled the assignment in favour of the 5th respondent on 20-4-1979. The 5th respondent filed an appeall on the file of the Joint Collector, the 2nd respondent herein who is the appellate authority under Rule 10 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 and the appellate authority confirmed the order of resumption as per his order dated 29-10-79, Subsequently the land so resumed was assigned to the petitioners by the TahsildarKodangi the 4th respondent herein by his order date 3-11-1979. The 5th respondent filed the order of resumption on the file of the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Land Revenue and the proceedings were sought to be interdicted by the petitioneron the ground that the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Land Revenue has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Collector as the order of the Collector is made under a special Act and the general power of superintendence and control by the Commissionerr of Land Revenue over the Collector or other revenue authorities will not enable him to revise the said order.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader Sri N. Subba Reddy raised two contentions. Firstly, the land was admittedly situated in Telangana Area of Andhra Pradesh and the 1st respondent has jurisdiction under section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Board of Revenue Regulation LX of 1358 fasli and the proceedings are well within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent as he can revise any order of the subordinate revenue authorities as the Collector can revise any order passed by the subordinate Revenue Officers in his division under Regulation 7 of 1828. Secondly the impugned proceedings are also sustainable under sec. 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act VIII of 1317 Fasli.