HANUMANTHARAO Vs. GANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Revenue Minister dated 29-6-1955.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that one Guruviah who was the Vatandar Police Patel of Madhapur village died leaving two sons Buchi Rajiah and Pedda Lingaiah. Buchi Rajiah became the vatandar, but after his death Narsinga Rao who is the grandson of the brother of Guruviah was declared the Vatandar Police Patel. After his death, disputes arose between his widow and the son of Pedda Lingaiah viz., Hanumantha Rao. The Additional Collector by his order dated 23-7-1950 directed that the patta of vatan Police Patel be made in the name of Gangamma, widow of Narsinga Rao. Hanumantha Rao went in appeal to the Revenue Board on 7-11-1950. The Revenue Board reversed the order of the Additional Collector by their order dated 5-3-1952. A review petition was made by Gangamma, but the Board after hearing the arguments refused to interfere with their original order and rejected the review petition on 25-2-1953. Gangamma then went in revision before the Revenue Minister on 18-3-1953. The Revenue Minister by his order dated 29-6-1955 reversed the order dated 5-3-195 2. The Petitioner, therefore, has come to this Court in a Writ proceeding.

(3.) It is argued that as a result of the advent of the Hyderabad Board of Revenue Regulation of 1358 F., all the revisional powers of the Government have become extinct save in so far as they are reserved in the manner prescribed in Section 6 of the said Regulation, that as G.O. No. 31 dated 14-9-1949 which made such reservation has been superseded by G.O. No. 8 dated 28-2-1952, the Government had no powers of revision and so the order passed was without jurisdiction. It was also argued that since the revision was only against the order dated 25-2-1953, the Revenue Minister while allowing the revision could not have set aside the order dated 5-3-1952 and restored the order of the Additional Collector dated 23-7-1950. It is further argued that the revision petition was disposed of without giving an opportunity to the party to be fully heard. In this way, there has been a denial of principles of natural justice and on that ground the order is liable to be quashed.