DUGI TAJIK Vs. CHIEF SECY GOVT OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B L Singh, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the state respondents and Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 3.

(2.) AT the outset Mr. Taffo, learned counsel for private respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present revision petition on the ground that the order dated 9. 8. 2002 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner as a Revenue Officer, therefore, according to the provisions of Section 83 (1) (b) of the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Act, 2000 which comes into effect from 17th November, 2000, an appeal shall lie to the Govt. According to the learned counsel for private respondent No. 3, in view of this specific provisions in the Act, the present Revision Petition is not maintainable.

(3.) MR. T. Michi, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner on the other hand contended that in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of Act, the Govt. has appointed the Director of Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh as Revenue Officer for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the power of Revenue Officer can only be exercised by the Director of Land Management and the Deputy Commissioner is not the Revenue Officer and as such when the order is not passed in the capacity as Revenue Officer, no appeal lies to the Government. The Revision Petition, is therefore, maintainable in terms of Regulation 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, for short, the Regulation.