MUNUSWAROY Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner A Munuswamy Naicker is questioning an order made by the Commissioner of Land Revenne in Ref. No. B. 4/3758/85 dt. 14-8-85 dismissing his application for restoration of the revision petition dis missed for default on 8-8-83 in case No. B4/3055/80. The petitioner is an agriculturist owing and extent of Ac. 1-90 cents of dry land in S. No. 772 of Bondapalle village, Chittoor taluk. He was assigned porumboke land of an extent of-cs. 2-36 cents in S. No. 773/2 by the Tahsildar, Chittoor on 10-8-74. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition he claims that he improved the land by spending considerable amounts. He alleges that the 4th respondent one Rajagopala Naicker is inimically disposed towards him and so applied to the second respondent, Based on that application the second resp indent passed an order evicting the petitioner from the land in question by proceedings No 789/80 dt. 24-6-80. Questioning that order he filed a revision to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the first respondent herein. Pending disposal of the main revision an interim order was made by the first respondent on 8-7-30. Sri Jaisimha, it is alleged, was then the Commisionerr of Land Revenue and he with laudable object of not causing inconvenient to poor ryots ordered that he would hear revision petitions at Districts Headquarters. Accordingly the revision petitions pending before the first respondent ware transfered to the Districts to be heard by the first respondent as and when he camped at those places. When there was a change in the incumbency of the office of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the successor officer changed this practice with the result several cases that were called at the office of the first respondent in Hyderabad were dismissed for default: the parties were not aware of the disposal and by then several advocates have revoked their vakalats. Under those circumstances, the petitioner's revision petition came to be dismissed on 8-8-83. An application filed by him seeking restoration of that revision was also dismissed on 14-8-83 which is questioned in this writ petition by way of certiorari.

(2.) Board of Revenue Standing Orders 15 para 18 confers revisional jurisdiction on the Board of Revenue. The Commissioner of Land Revenue as the successor to the Board of Revenue is the revisional authority. The aforesaid provision reads ; Revision:(1) The order of the authority making the assignment, if no appeal is presented, or of the appellate authority, if an appeal is presented is final and no second appeal shall be admitted. But if at any time within three years of the original or appellate decision, the Collector is satisfied that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the powers of the officer who passed it or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation, he may in the case of an order passed by an officer subordinate to him, set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision. The Board of Revenue may set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision of an officer subordinate to it within three years if it is satisfied that the decision was grossly inequitable ; it may also exercise similar powers without any limit of time where there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or where the decision exceeded powers of the officer who passed it or where it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation. All revision petitions in drakhast cases should be stamped with a court free lable to the value of two rupees." From a reading of para 11 (1) it is fairly clear that the Board of Revenue is empowered to set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision of the sub-ordinate officer if it is satisfied that the decision was grossly inequitable. Any material irregularity committed in the procedure or in exercise of power by a subordinate or any orders made by a subordinate under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation can also be set aside in exercise of the aforesaid revisional jurisdiction. If none of these factors is present the revis- ional authority cannot interfere with the order. There is no specific provision conferring power on the revisional authority to dismiss an application for default. Whether the B. S. O. in question has statutory basis or not need not be gone into in this writ petition since it is not relevant. When admittedly the first respondent was acting under the provisions of the B. S. O. 15 para 18 he was bound to follow the procedure stated thereunder; when that procedure does not empower him in dismiss an application for default, his action, in in my view cannot be sustained. It cannot be denied that the rights of the petitioner were involved; and an assignment made in his favour was set aside and the legality of that order is questioned before the Commissioner of Land Revenue. It will tharefore be reasonably clear that the dispute raised by the petitioner was in the nature of a lis although technically it cannot be said that there was a lis between him and the Government. It is settled law that no action to the detriment of a person can be taken by a public authority without notice to him.

(3.) Mr. Chandrasekhara Reddy for the petitioner says that without notice to the petitioner the revision petition was dismissed. Thai appears to be true in the circumstances of the case. The records have not been produced before me to show that notice in fact was sent to the party. In such circumstances the dismissal of the revision petition filed by the petitioner without notice to him on 8-8-83 was clearly bad in law. I must also mention that neither the petitioner nor the 4th respondent was present before the Commissioner of Land Revenue on 8-8-83 when the matter was called as is evident from the order produced before me. From this it is very clear that both the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent had no notice about the hearing of the revision petition. At any rate no record is placed before me to establish that either of the parties had notice.