LAWS(APH)-1966-6-2

RANGARAJ GANGARAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On June 14, 1966
RANGARAJ GANGARAM Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the State Government dated 16th April, 1964. It arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) The 2nd respondent Mohd. Sahib mortgaged the land bearing survey No. 365 situated at Pelam Village in Nizamabad District with the petitioner in Sharewar, 1350 Fasli. In a subsequent litigation between the parties a compromise memo. was filed in 1352 Fasli recognising the mortgage and allowing the mortgagor to redeem the property after the expiry of 12 years without being required to pay any mortgage amount. The 2nd respondent filed an application under section 14 of the Prevention of Agricultural Land Alienation Act (III of 1349 Fasli), hereinafter referred to as ' the Act' for redemption. That application was resisted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that subsequent to the compromise of 1352 Fasli there was an oral agreement between the parties, that the petitioner should take half the land in lieu of his debt and put the 2nd respondent in possession free of any charge of the other half. It was therefore contended that there was no effective mortgage which could be redeemed. It was further contended that since the Act was repealed in 1950, no application under section 14 could be filed in 1959.

(3.) After a proper enquiry, the Collector repelled the contentions raised by the mortgagee-petitioner and directed the mortgagee to put the mortgagor in possession of half of the property which was in the possession of the mortgagee. Aggrieved by that order of the Collector, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal under the Act to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue agreed with the conclusion of the Collector and rejected the appeal. The petitioner subsequently filed a revision petition with the State Government of Andhra Pradesh under the Act. The revision petition also was dismissed and that is the order which is now impugned in this writ petition.