A RAMAIAH Vs. R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, 300 in number, claiming to be the landless poor were enjoying the land in question since long. It is admittedly an Inam land and under the A. P. Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, an application was made and the Tahsildar eventually in exercise of his powers under Section 7(1) of the A. P. (A. A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, granted patta in favour of the petitioners. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the appellate authority admittedly under the Act, purported to exercise suo motu powers and stayed the orders of the Tahsildar. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) Well, the question that has been debated is whether he has any suo motu powers under the Act in exercising his powers as he has done in this case. Suo motu powers under the Act is only traceable to the Commissioner, Land Revenue under Section 14(A) of the Act which reads as follows: 14-A(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Board of Revenue may, at any time either suo motu or on application made to it, call for and examine the records relating to any proceedings taken by the Tahsildar, the Revenue Court or the Collector under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision made or order passed therein ; and if, in any case, it appears to the Board of Revenue that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for re-consideration, it may pass orders accordingly. 2. No order prejudicial to any persons shall be passed under sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation.

(3.) But then, the argument on behalf of the Government as well as the other respondents in whose favour already the land is said to have been assigned, is that, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar vs. Krishna wherein relying on a decision of the Privy Council in Nagendra Nath Dey vs. Suresh Chandra Dey it has been held that even in exercising revisional power of a Court, a power similar to the apoellate powers could be exercised like a revision, though in name arises out of Small Causes suit and so forth and if that be so, if a revisional court can exercise suo motu powers, by equation the appellate authority also can exercise suo motu powers. The learned Government Pleader was not able to place before the Court when an authority was sought for by the Court in respect of the said proposition and perhaps very rightly he showed his inability to do so. It would be pushing the wheel backwards and startling results will follow if it is held so. Normally, it is the revisional authority that exercises suo motu powers and if the same is allowed to be exercised by the appellate authority which provision has not been enacted hitherto in any piece of Legislation conferring suo motu powers to an appellate authority, then the entire jurisdition will have to be re-written in this behalf. Hence, unhesitatingly I reject the contention on behalf of the respondents herein. Indeed in this case the Legislatirue has made a provision in enacting Section 14-A. for the exercise of suo motu powers by a particular authority, namely, the Commissioner of Land Revenue, It equally demonstrates that a suo motu power explicitly is provided for and that too to an authority who has the revisional powers to exercise and therefore nowhere a revisional power is exercisable by the appellate authority. In view of this, the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents is rejected and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. However, this will not preclude the affected respondents from initiating proceedings before any authority, if it is open to them under law, agitating their rights. No costs. Advocate's fees Rs. 100/-