MANIKYAMMA Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER MAHABUBNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are the widows of one Kalal Narayana who was said to be the protected tenant of lands in Survey. Nos. 65, 66, 87, 89,90/1, 90/2 and 91 measuring Ac. 57-38 guntas situate at Kondurg (west) Mandal Mahaboobnagar district. Respondents 2 to 4 filed an application before the Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer) for correction of entries in Column 16 of the pahanies for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The Tahsildar, by his order dated 19-12-1983 added the names of respondents 2 to 4 along with the names of the petitioners under the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Lands Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Revenue Divisional Officer who, by his order dated 3-11-1986 deleted the names of respondents 2 to 4. Thereafter respondents 2 to 4 filed a further revision before the first respondent-District Revenue Officer, Mahaboobnagar District. The petitioners, raised an objection that the revision before the first respondent is not maintainable and thereafter, filed this writ petition praying for a writ of prohibition against the first respondent from proceeding with the revision preferred by respondents 2 to 4.

(2.) Respondents 2 to 4 filed a counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that the land in question is temple land and that the said late Kala Narayana was not the protected tenant. It is admitted that the petitioners are the widows of the said late Kala Narayana and it is added that respondent No 2 is his brother and respondents 3 and 4 are his brother's sons who constitute joint family and were in possession of the said land; that the Petitioners were working in the field along with them. As their names were not recorded in the cultivation column of pahanis of 1982-83 and 1983-84, they filed application for correction of pahanis. The Tahsildar ordered correction by adding their names along with the petitioners names. The petitioners filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer who set aside the order of the Tahsildar. They then filed appeal before the first respondent though it is wrongly described as revision under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act and that this wrong quoting does not mean that the District Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction. It is stated that the petitioners have mis-construed the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. It is submitted that the Tahsildar has already submitted his report to the District Revenue Officer, but because of the stay granted bv this Court the enquiry before the respondent cannot be proceeded with.

(3.) Sri Mahipathi Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that against an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 9 of the Act. no further revision lies to the Collector; as such the Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision filed before him. On the other hand, Sri Pratana Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, an appeal lies to a higher authority; the Collector being the higher authority to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the present representation as appeal is maintainable.