KHAIRUDDIN ALI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are petitioners in Writ Petition No.1760 of 1993. In that writ petition, the appellants questioned the legality of the order passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms. No.15, Revenue (ASN.III) Department, dated 6-1-1992 and the further order dated 8-10-1992 passed by the Government in the review petition preferred by the appellants. The writ petition having been dismissed, the present writ appeal is filed.

(2.) The order of the Government assailed in the writ petition is the one passed by treating the communication sent by the District Collector to the Secretary to Revenue Department as a revision under Section 166-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. The Collector requested the Government to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement passed on 26-4-1990 and communicated to him on 7-5-1990. By that order, the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, to whom the matter was remitted by the Government at the instance of appellants' G.P.A. Holder, directed the Assistant Director of Land Revenue, Ranga Reddy District to issue a supplemental Sethwar in the names of the petitioners (appellants herein) and other shareholders for the balance area of Ac.98.22 guntas out of survey Nos.184 and 185 of Cherlapalli village. The said direction was given based on the Muntakhab No.2081 of 1357 Fasli issued by Sarfekhas authorities under which the ancestors of the petitioners were granted patta for an extent of 300 bighas, equivalent to about Ac.225.00. It was observed by the Commissioner that the said Muntakhab was given effect to by the Revenue authorities and by the Government as well in G.O.Ms. No.388, Revenue (R) Department, dated 5-4-1971 wherein the classification of the land as Government Kancha Land was held to be illegal in view of the Muntakhab. It may be mentioned that a supplemental Sethwar was issued in favour of one of the writ petitioners i.e., Mohd. All on an application filed by him on the basis of Muntakhab. The said petitioner filed application in the year 1956, soon after the Survey was finalised, seeking rectification of the entry that it was Government Kancha Land. Accepting the request, the Land Records Assistant issued the supplemental Sethwar in the course of Jamabandi, 1958 recognizing the petitioner as pattadar in respect of Ac.l26.17 guntas covered by Survey Nos.186 and 182 (old Survey No.141).' The Sethwar issued by the Land Records Assistant was affirmed by the Government, overruling the objections of the Collector. 11 years after the said Government Order was passed, the appellants represented by the General Power of Attorney Holder, (who is the appellant herein) filed an application before the Government (Revenue Department) seeking directions to issue supplemental Sethwar for the balance extent of Ac.98.22 guntas as per the Muntakhab. The Government rejected the petition on 22-1-1985 by a non-speaking order. Thereafter, the General Power of Attorney Holder filed another revision petition before the Honourable Minister for Revenue requesting him to issue orders for issuance of supplemental Sethwar for an additional extent of Ac.98.22 guntas in Survey Nos.184 and 185. By an order dated 20-9-1986, the Government declined to pass any orders on merits on the ground that the matter pertains to rectification of survey errors and, therefore, remitted the case to the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement for disposal under Section 87 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. The Commissioner then heard the Counsel for the parties and passed an elaborate order upholding the petitioner's G.P.A.'s contention and allowing his claim. Against this order dated 26-4-1990, as already stated, the Collector filed a petition to the State Government, who by an order dated 6-1-1992, set aside the order of the Commissioner while holding that the extent of Ac.98.22 guntas is a Government land and that the Muntakhab is not a valid and genuine one. The review petition filed under Section 166 of the Act by the petitioners' General Power of Attorney Holder was rejected on 8-10-1992. Questioning the said two orders dated 6-1-1992 and 8-10-1992, the writ petition giving rise to the present writ appeal, was filed.

(3.) No doubt, there is considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the order passed by the Government is bald and laconic. The basis for characterising the Muntakhab, which was earlier upheld by the Government itself and acted upon in respect of an extent of Ac.126.00 guntas as not genuine, is not spelt out in the order of the Government. The order of the Government makes elaborate reference to the earlier proceedings, contentions raised by the parties, but the findings are contained in a few sentences in the concluding para. The said para contains conclusions rather than reasons for conclusions. The observation that the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement had not taken the evidence offered by the Government is also without basis. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants Mr. N. Subba Reddy vehemently contended that in view of the incurable lacuna in the order, this is a fit case to direct the Government to reconsider the matter and to pass a fresh reasoned order. On a deeper consideration, we are unable to accede to the contention of the learned Counsel. The mere fact that the order of the Government impugned in the writ petition is defective does not automatically entitle the writ petitioners to the relief which they are seeking. While considering the question whether the order of the Government has to be set aside and sent back for fresh consideration, we cannot disregard certain facts apparent from the record. Before setting aside the order of the Government, we have to necessarily consider whether the order of the Commissioner, which was challenged before the Government was within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner; otherwise, we will be restoring an illegal order passed without jurisdiction after quashing another unsustainable order and this course, we are reluctant to adopt in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.