GUMMADI NARAYANA REDDY Vs. HARIKISHEN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals have been heard together because of a common legal question, which is whether the Revenue Minister has revisory jurisdiction over the orders passed by the Board of Revenue. Before dealing with it certain facts in both the appeals should be stated. In W.A.No.9 of 1959 the dispute between the parties is over the patta rights of certain lands situated between the two villges of Turkapalli and Yamjal. The former village was once, part of the jagir estate held by a person called Fakruddin and the other village was included in the Sarf-e-Khas, or the private estate of the Nizam. On Bahman 23, I353-F. (December 27, 1943) the patta rights are alleged to have been granted to the predecessor-in-interest of two persons, who had filed the writ petition. The lands appear to be situated within the cantonment area near what is called the Hague Lines and it is stated that horses owned by the military were being trained on them. It is also stated that the father of the writ-petitioner claimed compensation from the concerned military authorities for their being so used, and some compensation was given for the period between 1924 to 1939. In 1942 these lands were requisitioned for the purposes of extending the Hakimpet Aerodrome and these requisition proceedings were for the then Government of India, though they were under rule 66-A of the Defence of Hyderabad Rules. It is further claimed that the Collector directed the payment of the compensation to the writ petitioners, the amounts being annually payable for the use of the lands. The writ petitioners also claimed to have appealed to the Board of Revenue against the inadequacy of the amount and what this authority finally fixed was to be paid to them.

(2.) The event, which has led to the writ petition, is that one Gummadi Narayana Reddy, who is the 3rd respondent to the petition, had applied to the Collector, Hyderabad District, for the pattas of the lands to be given to him because of his possession over them for 50 years. The Collector asked the Tahsildar to report and on December 26, 1949, declared the aforesaid Gummadi Narayana Reddy to be in possession of the lands and the pattas to be made in his name. He further directed that the patta in the name of the writ petitioner's father should be cancelled. An appeal against the decision was filed before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed and the order of Collector reversed. There against Gummadi Narayana Reddy filed a revision petition before the Revenue Minister, who set aside the Board's Order and restored that of the Collector. Against this order, which is of October 31, 1956, awrit petition was filed in this Court against three respondents, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Revenue Minister being the first two respondents. The petition was heard by our learned brother Srinivasachari, J., who has allowed it. The grounds for vacating the order is that the Revenue Minister has no revisory jurisdiction over the Board's decisitns and further in allowing the revision ptition he took into consideration certain facts, which the writ petitioners had no opportunity of meteing, or otherwise arguing against. Against this judgment Gummadi Narayana Reddy has filed the writ appeal. It is clear that should the Revenue Minister be found to have revisory powers over the decisions by the Board, the only other complaint, which the petitioners had against the order, would be about their having had no opportunity of meeting part of the record. But that should be after the first question had been dealt with, and for this purpose the facts in the other writ appeal should be stated. The lands in dispute in this writ appeal are Survey Nos. 472, 473 and 474 in the village of Ankapur, Armoor Taluk, Nizamabad district. They were auctioned in favour of one Yamuna Bai, and subsequently were directed to be re-auctioned, which was done. Again Yamuna Bai succeeded in getting the pattas, but some villagers appealed to the District Collector, who ordered another fresh auction and the order was confirmed on appeal by the Subedar. About this time the scheme for the colonisation of the area irrigated by the Nizamsagar came into operation and the lands were situated within the area. One Taher Siddiqui was at one time appointed as the Special Officer for assigning lands under the scheme and he gave the lands to one Ayub Ali Khan, who was the husband of the 2nd respondent to the writ petition. The ryots being aggrieved appealed but by then Taher Siddiqui had been appointed as Collector and he heard the appeal, though it was against his own order, and rejected it. The villagers re-agitated the matter and the Divisional Officer, on March 20, 1950, referred the question to the Talukdar, asking for the direction as to whether there should be a fresh auction. The Collector made a reference to the Revenue Secretary and asked for direction. Eventually the matter came before the Board of Revenue, which decided on April 24, 1951, that the orders by Taher Siddiqui sanctioning the pattas in favour of Ayub Ali Khan were not sustainable, Ayub Ali Khan had no locus standi and the order by the Subedar cancelling the pattas in favour of Yamuna Bai had not been implemented. Against this order, Ayub Ali Khan's widow filed the revision petition to the Revenue Minister. The authority in the first instance remanded the case to the Collector with a direction to record the evidence of both parties and give him findings concerning possession of the lands and payment of land revenue. The Collector's finding were that Ayub Ali Khan since long time had the possession and the cultivators were either from him or from Yamuna Bai. After these findings the Revenue Minister allowed the revision petition and directed the patta of the lands to be given to the widow in order to protect her possession. Three persons filed a writ petition challenging the order and they impleaded in the petition the Revenue Minister and the widow as the two respondents. Our learned brother, Srinivasachari, J., allowed the petition on the grounds that the appellate authority had properly directed the land to be re-auctioned in accordance with the rules in force and the Minister was wrong in setting aside that order. The widow has filed the writ appeal against this judgment. It is clear that should the Revenue Minister be found to have the revisory jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over his decisions. Moreover it has to be shown that the writ petitioners had suffered some infringement of their personal legal rights before they can be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.

(3.) The decision in Mir Llaqat Hussain v. Revenue Minister, Government of Hyderabad,I.L.R.(1956) Hyd. 243, is often relied upon in support of the proposition that the Revenue Minister has no revisory jurisdiction over the Board's decisions. The case, however, decides about the Revenue Ministers having no jurisdiction to revise Board's decision in atiyat matters. It therefore does not support the wider proposition, for which it is often relied upon. The facts of the case were that there was a dispute between the parties to the litigation over sharing one-fourth of the income from their ancestor's jagir, which one-fourth was under the then law earmarked for managing the estate, and before January, 1953, a petition was pending before the Chief Minister concerning this dispute. Before this petition was transferred to the Board of Revenue the powers of the Revenue Minister to hear appeals, revisions and reviews in atiyat matters under Gasti No.10 of I338-F and other circulars had been transferred to the Board by G.O. No. 8 of February 28, 1952, and were made exercisable by it. This was done under section 6 of Regulation No.LX of 1358-F , under which the Board had been established. Soon after the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiry Act No. VIII of 1952 was enacted, which further constituted the Board as one of the Courts for deciding atiyat disputes and its then section 11(4) made the decision of the Board final. The enactment also repealed Gasti No. 10 of 1338-F., which contained the then existing provisions for the revenue authorities for adjudicating disputes concerning Crown grants. Then by G.O. No. 31 of August 19, 1952, all the power to hear appeals, revisions and reviews and all miscellaneous petitions in Atiyat matters vested in the Minister for Revenue under the repealed Gasti were also transferred to the Board. This was then the legal position when the Chief Minister directed on January 26, 1953, the miscellaneous petition that was pending before him to be decided by the Board. The decision on the petition being unfavourable to one of the parties a revision petition was filed by him before the Revenue Minister and the order passed in exercise of the revisory powers was challenged by a writ petition in the Hyderabad High Court. In those circumstances two questions arose to be decided in the case the first being whether the Revenue Minister had power under section 9 of the Board of Revenue Regulation to revise the decision in atiyat matters. The other question was whether the Minister was otherwise authorised to pass orders varying the decision.