MUNGANDA VENKATARATNAM Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these petitions are filed questioning the observation made by the Joint Collector, West Godavari District (1st respondent in all the petitions) in his order dated 5-6-2000 passed in an appeal filed by the petitioners in these petitions jointly as appeal No.1573 of 1999, these petitions are being disposed of by a common Order. W.P.No.19906 of 2000 is filed by M. Venkataratnam W.P.No. 19907 of 2000 is filed by S. Tulasi Rao, W.P. No. 19908 of 2000 is filed by T. Venkataratnam, and W.P.No. 19909 of 2000 is filed by M. Subba Rao, who, according to the record, are interrelated. Though they jointly filed an appeal before the Collector, they for their own reasons, filed these petitions separately on the same day.

(2.) The undisputed facts in these petitions are, on a representation submitted to him by S.L. Satyanarayana of Chintalapudi, alleging that his brother S. Tulasi Rao, (petitioner in W.P. No. 19907 of 2000), a retired Tahsildar, had obtained benami pattas in the names of his relatives in respect of Ac: 18-69 cents in various S.No., at Chintalapudi and is enjoying the said land, those pattas may be cancelled and the land in his possession may be assigned to the persons eligible for assignment, the Collector, West Godavari District, called for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn gave a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintalapudi (second respondent) to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. By his report dated 31.3.1998 second respondent reported that S. Tulasi Rao, while working in various capacities in the erstwhile Chintalapudi Taluq, managed to obtain benami pattas in favour of Tumma Venkataratnam (Petitioner in W.P. No.19908 of 2000), Mukkamala Eswaramma (Petitioner in W.P. No.19909 of 2000 is claiming to be a legatee of the land assigned to the said Eswaramma as per the will dated 27-10-1963 of Eswaramma), Sriramula Satyanarayana (S. Tulasi Rao is claiming to be a legatee of the land under a will dated 9-9-1963) and Munganda Venkataratnam (Petitioner in W.P. No. 19906 of 2000) in respect of Ac. 18.69 cents of land, and is himself enjoying the said land, and that all the assignees in whose names those lands are assigned are neither residents nor natives of Chintalapudi village and so pattas issued in their names may be cancelled. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional officer, after conducting an enquiry, issued orders resuming the land assigned to the aforesaid assignees, and directed the second respondent to take possession of the land from S. Tulasi Rao, vide his Order D.Dis.No.1263/98 dated 16.12.1998, on the ground that the assignees failed to produce evidence to show that they are cultivating the land, when in fact, it is S. Tulasi Rao that is enjoying the entire land, and since an assignee Sriramula Satyanarayana is no other than the paternal uncle of Tumma Venkataratnam, the father-in-law of S. Tulasi Rao, and since the other assignee Mukkamala Eswaramma is no other than the aunt and the other assignee Mungada Venkataratnam who is but a relative of the wife of S. Tulasi Rao. Aggrieved by the said Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, petitioners jointly preferred an appeal to the first respondent, who while setting aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling the pattas, on the ground that suo motu powers to cancel a patta cannot be invoked by the Revenue Divisional Officer after a lapse of 12 years, directed the second respondent to make "discreet enquiry afresh and submit a status report of the assigned land and the assignees as on the date, with all material evidence to him". Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid direction of the first respondent, to the second respondent to conduct discreet enquiry, these writ petitions are filed by the appellants before the first respondent.

(3.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for cancellation of patta after three years of their issuance, in view of the Board Standing Order (B.S.O.) 15, order of the first respondent impugned in these petitions directing the second respondent to make discreet enquiries into the validity of assignments, and also the status of the assignees, is liable to be set aside. According to him, Government only has the power to review the order of assignment and so even if the assignments were fraudulently obtained they can only be cancelled by the Government but not by the first respondent. He placed strong reliance on G. Munilakshmamma v. The District Collector, Chittoor District, 1991 (1) ALT 617; D. Gangadhar v. Ch. Chakkara Reddy, 1996 (1) ALD 372 (DB) = 1996 (1) ALT 672; P. Anasuyamma v. The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1994 (1) APLJ 6 (SN); Surya Kumari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1978 (1) ALT 10, in support of his contentions.