SURENDRANATH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein, who is the daughter's son of one Nuzella Venkairamaiah Chetty, and KadiyalaVenkatakrishnaiah Naidu, an ex-military personnel applied for patta of certain lands in Chowdepalli village, Punganur taluk. Those lands were originally in the unauthorised occupation of the appellant's maternal grandfather who was evicted in F. 1380. The appellant's case is that he entered into possession of the lands in F. 1381 and was in occupation, since then as Shivaijamadar. The Assistant Collector, Madanadpalle, ordered that the ex-military officer Venkatakrishnaiah Naidu be assigned land in an adjacent village and his application for the assignment of land in Chowdepalli may be rejected. He preferred an appeal as against the said order and in that appeal the appellant herein was made a respondent. The District Revenue Officer, who heard the appeal, rejected the appeal of Venkatakrishnaiah Naidu. Thereafter he considered the claims of the appellant herein to a patta for the land. He observed that he was the daughter's son of Nuzella Venkauaramaiah Chetty, who was a wealthy pattedar and who was in unauthorised possession of the land in F. 1380. He was only a dummy put up by bis maternal grandfather and assigning the land to him would be indirectly abetting occupation by a wealthy pattedar. The appellant was also not a resident of Chowdepalle, and had a medical shop and the assignment of land to such a person would defeat the policy of the Government to help the poor and the downtrodden. He therefore held that the appellant here in was not eligible for the assignment of the land and his request for assignment should also be rejected.

(2.) Questioning the said order the appellant herein preferred a revision petition to the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements. The Commissioner also agreed with the District Revenue officer and dismissed the revision petition Challenging the order of the Board of Revenue, the appellant herein filed W.P. No. 3895/76 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Commissioner for Survey and.Settlements affirming the order of the District Revenue Officer. The Writ petition having been dismissed, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The main contention of Sri E. Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the appeal before the District Revenue Officer was only an appeal preferred by the ex-military personnel rejecting his application for ibe assignment of land to him, and in that appeal the District Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel the patta granted to the appellant. We are unable to agree with this contention. In the appeal before the Dis- trict Revenue Officer by the ex-military personnel he had added the appellant herein as. the respondent. He questioned not only the rejection of bis assignment but also the granting of the land to the appellant on patta. Thus both the matters were before the District Revenue Officer. The District Revenue Officer was therefore in order in considering the question whether the assignment in tavour of the appellant was also valid. Sri Subrahmanyam contended that even in such a case the District Revenue Officer ought not to nave cancelled the patta himself and ought to have remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector and asked him to consider whether the patta should be cancelled or not. This contention also, in our view, is not sustainable. It is well known that an appeal is in the nature of a rehearing and the appellate authority is entitled to pass every order the original authority is entitled to pass. The appellate authority when it came to the conclusion that the appellant herein was only a dummy put up t>y the maternal grand* father, who had already been evicted on the ground that he was in unautho- rised, occupation, was entitled to cancel the patta granted in favour of the appellant. Sri Subrahmanyam took objection to the observation of our brother Jeevan Reddy J., that the appeal before the District Revenue Officer was not in the nature of Statutory appeal. He submitted ihat the Board's Standing Orders have statutory force and any appeal under Board's Standing Order No. 15 is a statutory appeal. It is unnecessary for us to consider this question as even assuming that the Board's Standing Orders have statutory force, as we have indicated above, the District Revenue Officer in exercising his powers of appeal had jurisdiction to cancel the patta in favour of the appellant without remanding the same to the Assistant Collector. The writ appeal is dismissed. G.V.K.R. W.A. dismissed.