PULAKANAM SRIRANGDNAYAKULU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ONGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has submitted his return in C.C. No. 111 CLX 75 before the Land Reforms Tribunal for computation under S. 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973(Act No. 1 of 1973 for short the Act; and he was founo to be holder of surplus land in an extent of 0.2780 standard holdings and accordingly he was directed to surrender the excess land. In pursuance thereof, he surrendered the land under the Tribunal's proceedings August 3, 1976 bearing S. Nos. 255/1, 355/5, 331/2, 342/6, 342/3, 342/6 B1. 342/6-B, 342/5, 371/1, 508/8 in a total extent of Ac. 6-29 cents. Subsequently he filed LR.A No 87/79 before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by judgment dated July 26, 1983, held that the batitloner is a non-surplus holder. In consequence thereof, the petitioner filed an application, for restitution of Ac. 6-29 cents surrendered by him, under Rule 10-A (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (for short Rules'). Tne Revenue Divisional Officer directed re-delivary of the lands to the petitioner. Against this order, the allottees filed an appeal before the Collector. The Collector, while entertaining the appeal, by proceedings dated October 3, 1981, directed stay of resumption, pending disposal of the appeal. Assailing the jurisdiction of the Collector, the writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Sri Haranath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order of the Collector is devoid of jurisdiction. Rule 10-A provides the forum for re-delivery and resumption in a case where the appellate Tribunal or the High Court found a declarant to be a non-surplus holder and in exercise of the power, the Revenue Divisional Officer has directed re-delivery of the possession. The allottees had nat objected to it. Therefore, there is no right of appeal provided to the Collector against this order. Therefore, the order is per se without jurisdiction. I am unable to agree. No doubt, any determination of ceiling area u/s 4 is subject to an appeal under S. 20 and further revision to the High Court under S. 21 of the Act and any decision rendered on appeal or revision would stand merged with the order of the Primary Land Reforms Tribunal and the appellate or the revisional order is the executable order. In implementation thereof, the gamut of operation is now controlled by R.10 and R. 10-A of the Rules. Rule 10 postulates that on surrender of land, allotment has to be made to the persons prescribed under the Act and the Rules and they are to comply with certain conditions specified thereunder. It is not necessary to dilate on these details for the purpose of this case. Suffice to state that if they failed to comply with the conditions, power is given to the Revenue Divisioml Officer to resume the land and against such a resumption of land contends the learned counsel for the petitioner, the right of appeal is provided under R. 10 (6), which read thus :-

(3.) A reading of these Rules clearly indicates that where on appeal to the Appellate Tribunal or revision to the High Court, a person is found to be non-surplus holder, the land vested in the Government under S, 11 has to be transferred to the person who surrendered such land. The Tribunal shall pass an order to that effect and it shall specify the extent of the land and also the amount, if any, to be repaid by him to the Government in respect of the land and communicate that order to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Procedure for implementation then is provided under R. 10-A (6) and R. 10-A (7). We are rot concerned with the actual operation thereunder When an order is passed by those authorities under R. 10-A (3) or action is taker by the authority under R. 1C-A (6) or R 10-A (7), the persons to whom aliotment has already been given and are ir possession and enjoyment have also thereby been created with certain rights. Before depriving of the right to possession anc enjoyment and before exercising the discretion given to the Revenue Officer or the District Collector, as the cese may be, to order either to retransfer the lands to the land-holder by restitution or directing the allottees to surrender their land or to pay compensation to the land-holders in lieu of restitution of the land as envisaged under the Act, they are entitled to be heard before the final decision is taken. So, when a right is created in the allottees as a consequence of the allotment made by the competent authorities, before depriving them of their right, the doctrine of audi alterum partem will squarely creep into that area and that doctrine is to be adhered to In such an event when an order is passed by the R D 0 resuming the land right of appeal provided under R. 10 (6) would come into play. The language engrafted in Rule 10 (6) is "against every oider of resumption of the land passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer'' an appeal is provided. No doubt, there is no specific mention that an appeal lies against an order under sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (6) of R. 10-A but nevertheless an appeal "against every order of resumption" is provided under R. 10 (6). Though there is no express mention the language of the rule is explicit and unambigeous. Since the right of appeal has already been provided under R. 10 (6), the rule-making authority did not feel it necessary to expressly mention in Rule 10/-, in that regard. But the omission is incon- sequential in the light of the express language mentioned in Rule 10 (6) viz., "against every order of resumption of the land pas?ed by the Revenue Divisional Officer", be it either in exercise of the power under R. 10 or under Rule 10-A. The Revenue Divisional Officer alone is com- petent to pass the orders and against which the right of appeal is provided to the District Collector. Obviously, this is in consonance with the procedure as provided under R. IB of the Rules. Con- sidered from this perspective. I have no hesitation to hold that against an order of resumption passed under R. 10-A also, the allotter.j are entitled to file the appeal before the Collector under R. 10 (6). I hold that the District Collector has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Whether on the facts in this case resum- ption ca i he ordered or compensation, may be paid is a matter which the Collector has to decide. The contention tnat the allorees have surrendered the land cannot to gone into in this writ petition bacuise none of the respondents are appearing in this Court and it is free for the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appellate authority.