STATE OF ANDHRA Vs. TAVVINENI GANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent appeal is against the judgment of Umamaheswaram, J., vacating by a writ of certiorari the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memorandum No. 98745-F-52/3 dated 18-3-1953.

(2.) The petition for the aforesaid writ alleges that ever since 1949Mhe petitioner has been in Sivayijama occupation of Ac. 11/81 of assessed waste land in Manila village, Anantapur District, bearing S. No. 40/2-B; that he applied to the revenue authorities for the assignment of the said land; that the Tahsildar of Anantapur granted patta of the land to the second respondent, whereupon the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, who cancelled the patta in favour of the second respondent, but refused to assign the land on patta to the petitioner; that an appeal against the order was filed before the Collector, who ordered assignment in favour of the second respondent; that a revision against the order was filed before the Board of Revenue, which was accepted; assignment in favour of the second respondent was cancelled and assignment of the land to the petitioner was ordered; that the Board further directed the Tahsildar to issue 'D' Form in the petitioner's name and the assignment fee was paid on September 5, 1952. The petition further states that on the second respondent having moved the Government the order of March 18, 1953, was passed, which says that the Government were not convinced about the bona fides of the second respondent, and it further without any notice to the petitioner, set aside the order of the Board of Revenue, observing about the petitioner being old and not being likely to engage himself in direct cultivation. On the aforesaid facts, the petitioner asks for the writ to vacate the Government's order.

(3.) The learned Judge has held that three questions have arisen for decision in the case : the first being whether the Government is entitled to set aside the order of the Board of Revenue; the next whether the order of the Government was vitiated by omission to issue notice to the petitioner; and the third whether the order of the Government was purely administrative and not liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution. His decision on the first question after considering the various paragraphs of the Darkhast Rules is that the Government is not authorised to interfere with the orders passed by the Board of Revenue. He then held that the third question should be dealt first, because the second question would arise for consideration only if the jurisdiction, in whose exercise the impugned order was passed by the Government be found not to be administrative, but quasi-judicial. The decision of the learned Judge on the third question is that the several paragraphs of the Rules abundantly make it clear that the powers exercised by the several officers are either judicial or quasi-judicial, and that the revenue authorities assigning the Government lands under the Darkhast Rules, exercise powers similar to the transport authorities granting permission under the Motor Vehicles Act. Having answered the questions in the above form, the learned Judge has consequently found that the Government had erred in not giving notice to the petitioner, the order was bad, and should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.