B SITARAM REDDY BHEEMREDDY Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR MAHABUBNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners purchased land admeasuring various extents comprised in survey Nos.38, 43, 51 and 59 situated at Palwai Village of Maldakal Mandal in Mahabubnagar District. After allegedly taking permission from the Tahsildar under Section 47 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Act, for brevity), their names were also entered in Khasra Pahani for 1954-1955. In 1981, the predecessors of respondents 3 and 4 filed an application under Regulation 15(2) of A.P. (Telangana Area) Record of Rights In Land and Regulations 1358 Fasli (RoR Regulations). The second respondent, who conducted enquiry into the said application, by order dated 20.3.1991 directed to record the names of Golla Sanjanna and Golla Laxmadu on the ground that their names are mentioned in column No. 11 of pahani. The petitioners, therefore, filed a revision petition under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (RoR Act, for brevity) before the first respondent, who by an order dated 23.9.1997 rejected the revision on the ground that against an order passed by the second respondent under RoR Regulations, revision would not lie, as such an order was passed in the capacity of District Collector. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavits. A reference is made to Government Memo No.1616-Nl/81-3 Revenue (N) Department dated 21.11.1981. It is stated that as per the said memo, fresh cases of complaints about wrong entries made in the pahanies under Regulation 15(2) of RoR Regulations prior to 15.8.1978 (on which date RoR Act came into force) can be instituted and investigated under RoR Regulations. Though notices are served on respondents 3 and 4 and are represented by Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, no counter affidavit is filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised three contentions. First, he would urge that by reason of Section 13 of RoR Act, RoR Regulations are totally repealed and, therefore, the order of the District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar (DRO); second respondent herein, is without jurisdiction. Secondly, he would urge that though Regulation 15 of RoR Regulations does not prescribe any time limit, suo motu powers conferred by the said provision has to be exercised within a reasonable time. According to the learned Counsel, when the names of the petitioners were entered in Khasra Pahani for 1954-1955, it was improper for the second respondent to have ordered for correction after lapse of about thirty-six years. Lastly, it is urged that the Joint Collector ought to have exercised power under Section 9 of RoR Act, as the order of the DRO would affect the rights of the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on the Government memo dated 21.11.1981 in support of the contention that even after coming into force of the RoR Act still DRO can exercise jurisdiction under Regulation 5 of RoR Regulations. Learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that the first petitioner and another filed suit being O.S.No.43 of 1971 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gadwal, for declaration of title and for correction of names in record of rights, that petitioners 4 and 5 filed O.S.No.51 of 1997 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Gadwal, for injunction, and that petitioners 6 to 9 filed O.S.No.66 of 1997 whereas petitioner No.10 has filed O.S.No.61 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Gadwal and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. He also submits that by reason of the proviso to Section 13 of the RoR Act, jurisdiction of the DRO to entertain applications under Regulation 15(2) of RoR Regulations is not taken away.