K ANNAPURNA Vs. PRL DT JUDGE EAST GODAVARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in the writ petition is referred to a Division Bench on February 27, 1987, as it is of some general importance.

(2.) The question arises under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area)Tenancy Act, 1956 ('the Act'). The Act was enforced with the definition of 'Tahsildar' and 'Revenue Divisional Officer'. The Act contemplated an order passed by the former was subject to the order in appeal by the latter. These two authorities were deleted by the Amendment Act 39 of 1974, from July 1, 1980. The words 'Special Officer' is substituted for the word 'Tahsildar'. The District Munsif is now the Special Officer. Section 16 of the Act, after amendment, provides an appeal to the District Judge.

(3.) In the instant case, order is passed on July 6, 1980 by Tahsildar.The issue is whether under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act, appeal could be disposed of by the District Judge, or the appeal is to be disposed of by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Aggrieved by the order on July 6, 1980, appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The record does not disclose how such an appeal papers were transmitted to the District Judge, who decided the appeal on merits in the impugned order. The order in appeal is assailed in the writ petition by the aggrieved to hold the District Judge was not competent to dispose of the appeal and it was the Revenue Divisional Officer who should have disposed of the appeal.