MADAPURAM ERRAYYA Vs. SUTARI VADLA VENKAT NARRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Madapuram Errayya, claims to be in possession of lands bearing S. Nos. 911, 1203 and 1204 of Nasingi village, MedakTaluk, Medak District for over twenty-five years as the owner. His name was recorded in the Record of Rights when it was prepared in the year 1954-1955. While so, Sutari Pentaiah filed an application on 27th December, 1968 under section 15 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation 1358 Fasli, (hereinafter called the Regulation) before the District Collector, Medak, stating that he was the pattedar of those lands, that he was serving in the Military during the period 1954-1955 when the Khasra Pahani was prepared, that the Patwari had maliciously entered the name of the petitioner in Column 13 of the Khasra Pahani prepared in 1954-1955, that at the time of its preparation he was in possession and enjoyment of the lands and, therefore the entries in the Khasra Pahani might be corrected. In support of his contention, he filed a certified extract of the Kahani Patrika of 1954 pertaining to one year earlier than the Khasra Pahani. The Personal Assistant to the Collector, Medak District, issued notice to the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed his counter. He stated that Sutari Pentaiah was nominally the pattedar year back, that Bandobust Shunwai of the village was done in 1950 and changes were effected in the year 1952 and that it was a Jagir village. He further submitted that during the year 1936 Fasli the Jagir authorities sold those lands in open auction for recovery of land revenue arrears and he had purchased them in that auction and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of those lands. He also contended that the petition was barred by limitation. Sutari Pentaiah died on 25th May, 1975, during , the pendency of the petition. So his son, Venkata Narasaiah and his widow Ramavva respondents 1 and 2 in this writ petition, were brought on record. They also filed certified extracts of the Vasool Baqui Bandobust of 1950. The present petitioner did not produce any evidence oral or documentary, including the sale certificate of 1356 Fasli evidencing his purchase as alleged by him. The certified extract of the Pahani Patrika of 1954 which is of one year prior to the preparation of the Khasra Pahani indicated that Sutari Pentaiah was the pattedar and was also in possession of the lands. The entries in Column 8 of the certified extract of the Khasra Pahani of 1954-1955 showed that he was pattedar. However, the entries in Columns 13, 14 and 18 showed that the present petitioner is the purchaser and was in actual possession of S. No. 911 only, but not the other two survey numbers. The certified extracts of the Vasool Baqui Bandobust of 1950 showed that Narasimhulu, the father of Pentaiah was the pattedar of the three survey numbers.

(2.) The Personal Assistant to the Collector held that in the absence of any documentary and oral evidence produced by the present petitioner in support of his claim, Pentaiah was the occupant in lawful possession and enjoyment of the lands during 1954 and 1955 and his name should be substituted in Column 13 of the Khasra Pahani and Column 11 of the Phani Patrikas by deleting the name of the present petitioner. Hence he allowed the petition and directed the Tahsildar to take steps accordingly. Questioning that order the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) Sri Upendralal Waghray the learned Counsel for the petitioner impeaches the order on the following grounds: First, the Personal Assistant to the Collector has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under sections. 15 (2) of the Regulation. It is submitted that only the Collector is authorised to take action and there is no delegation, according to law of that power to the Personal Assistant to the Collector. But the Government pleader has placed before me G.O.M. No. 77, Revenue Department, dated 22nd January, 1968 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Notification II in Annexure II of that G.O. shows that in exercise of the powers conferred by sec tion 3 of the Andhra Pradesh District Collectors' Powers (Delegation) Act 1961 (Andhra Pradesh Act XXX II of 1961) the Governor of Andhra Pradesh has authorised the Personal Assistants to the Collectors to exercise all the powers vested in the District Collectors by or under the laws mentioned in the Annexure relating to a matter enumerated in List I or List III in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and having the force of law in any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Item 7 of the Annexure refers to the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 F. Regulation (LVIII of 1358 Fasli). In view of this order, I hold that there is valid delegation of the power under the Regulation to the Personal Assistant to the Collector and, therefore, he is competent to entertain and dispose of the petition.