GUDEPU SAILOO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions arise form the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer dated 15-9-1994.

(2.) The Inspector General of Police, Special Security Force, Andhra Pradesh, sent a requisition on 12-11-1993 and 3-1-1994 for the acquisition of lands situated in Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal for the purpose of setting up of operational Headquarters and training with the residential accommodation for the Police Academy. It was found that some of the lands belonged to the Government and certain lands were assigned lands. A proposal was made to resume the assigned lands if possible, so as to avoid payment of compensation. Though it was noted that according to the latest instructions of the Government even if the assigned lands are resumed, ex-gratia in the amount of the market value with 30 per cent with solatium was to be paid. In any case, the Government proposed examination of the matter and in February, 1994 the Commissioner of Land Revenue, identified 7 irregularities on which the assigned lands could be resumed and stated that action may be taken under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (T.A) Land Revenue Act, 1317-Fasli. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued on 28-3-1994 by the District Revenue Officer, who had been delegated with the power under Section 166-B. After considering the explanation given by the petitioners, who were the assignees of the lands, he passed an order on 15-9-1994 by which he came to the conclusion that all the seven allegations were properly met by the petitioners. In particular he found that the petitioners were in possession of the lands, that the certificates in Form-9 (G) were issued on 21-10-1961 in pursuance of the Government sanction dated 28-10-1953 and, it was, therefore, not effected by the subsequent ban in G.O.Ms.No.1122 dated 29-6-1991 prohibiting assignment of lands within the pheriphery of Hyderabad. The Collector, on a perusal of this order, came to the conclusion that the District Revenue Officer had not examined certain vital aspects, and therefore, he suspended the said order dated 15-9-1994 by order dated 3-1-1995. Writ Petition No.484/1995 has been filed challenging this order of the Collector dated 3-1-1995. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Collector to the Commissioner, Land Revenue on 29-5-1995. Which was returned on 20-10-1995 by the Commissioner, Land Revenue stating that no action being taken because it was decided to take up the case for suo motu revision under Section 166-C by the Government. Thereupon, he also referred the matter on 20-10-1995 to the Government and the petitioner also made a representation on 26-10-1995 to the Government. Considering all these, the Government passed an order on 24-1-1996 stating that the order of the Collector suspending the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 3-1-1995 was ratified and the Collector was requested to complete the enquiry and pass final order under intimation to the Government. Writ Petition No.7221/1996 has been filed against this order of the Government.

(3.) With regard to the order of the Collector dated 3-1-1995, the simple argument of the learned Counsel for petitioners is that the power under Section 166-B having already been delegated to the District Revenue Officer and exercised by him, a Collector as Enquiry Officer could not exercise the same powers once again. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Collector could exercise his general powers of supervision to revise any order of his subordinate which he thinks was irregular. But the instructions given by the Government in this regard clearly stipulate that such supervisory powers do not extend to statutory orders of the subordinates. In the circumstances, the order of the Collector dated 3-1-1995 is clearly without jurisdiction and it has to be set aside.