K BABU Vs. SEETHARAMA SWAMY PRABHUVU VARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interference of the writ Court and availability of the doctrine of judicial review are now well settled since the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakub vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan. A recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India categorically lays down that interference can be had only in the event the decision making process is otherwise not in accordance with law. Similar was the trend of the Supreme Court in the case of H.B.Gandhi vs. Gopi Nath and Sons that judicial review cannot be and is not directed against the decision itself, but it is directed against the decision making process. Let us, therefore, in the contextual facts, analyse and see for ourselves whether there is any infraction of law in the matter of decision making process. The contextual facts have been taken care of by the learned single Judge who came to a definite conclusion that intervention of the writ Court is not called for and as such, dismissed the writ applications.

(2.) The contextual facts depict that the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions claimed grant of ryotwari pattas under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 (for short being "Regulation 2 of 1970") before the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. Their claims have been rejected by the fourth respondent and being aggrieved by the orders of the fourth respondent, the petitioners and others preferred appeals to the Director of Settlements, Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 9 (3) of Regulation 2 of 1970. The factual score further reveals that the appeals, however, were dismissed. Second Appeals to the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh were also dismissed by an order dated 8-4-1993 and it is against the dismissal of the second appeals that this batch of writ petitions were moved before the learned single Judge, who by a common order dismissed the writ petitions and hence the present appeals.

(3.) The land measuring Ac. 917.00 in Original Survey No. 17 situate at Purushothapatnam village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, which land is hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the subject land' was purchased in a public auction by one late Sri Somaraju Purushothamadas in the year 1870 from the Secretary of State for India through the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Godavari Central Province, free of land revenue. The said Purushothamadas gifted the subject land in favour of Sri Seetharamachandraswamy Vari Devasthanam, the first respondent-Devasthanam under a registered gift deed dated 12-10-1878. Incidentally, be it noted that the first respondent-Devasthanam was, then, under the Trusteeship of H.E.H. The Nizam of Hyderabad and the Trusteeship came to an end in 1948-49 when the State of Hyderabad formed part of India by an instrument of accession signed between the Nizam and the Government of India.