Smt.,Peravalli Vani Vijayalaxmi & Ors. v. Khamma

- The challenge in these Writ Petitions is the common order dated 26-2-2010 passed in Revision Petition Nos.5/2009 and 6/2009 on the file of the Joint Collector, Khammam. Facts in brief are:- An application has been moved before Revenue Divisional Officer, Khamma, by Smt.,Peravalli Vani Vijayalaxmi and seven others for grant of ORC in respect of Ac.75.00 in Sy.No.55. The Revenue Divisional Officer considered their claim and granted ORC in their favour by order dated 1-12-2008. Assailing the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peravalli Seshagiri Raoi and Peravalli Ramakrishna Murthy filed Appeal No.5/2009 and whereas Sistala Suryaprakasha Shastry and others filed Appeal No.6/2009 on the file of the Joint collector, Khammam. The learned appellate authority, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the Counsel appearing for

the parties, proceeded to dismiss the appeals confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, dated 1-12-2008 passed in Rc.No.A2/1054/06 by order dated 10-2-2010. The Successor-in-Office of the appellate authority in exercise the sue moto powers of revision under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli stayed the order dated 10-2-2010 passed in Appeals No.5/2009 and 6/2009 by order dated 26-2-2010. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the common order passed in Revision Petitions No.5/2009 land 6/2009 and it is thus:- “He has filed an appeal before the former Joint Collector which was remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam endorsing the points for enquiry in the order. The petitioner further alleged that the successor Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam has passed orders hurriedly without giving any opportunity for cross examination on dated 1-12-2008 against this order a further appeal filed before the then Joint Collector on irregular issue of the ORCs and that the Joint Collector without giving proper opportunity and personal hearing and passed erroneous orders without considering the merits and upheld the impugned orders passed by the lower Court.

Upon perusing the records and material available on record, I find that there is a prima facie case and therefore it is hereby ordered that this matter be taken up under 166 B of A.P. (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and the orders of my predecessor passed in appeal No.5/2009 and 6/2009 dated 10-2-2010 in pursuance thereof be and hereby stayed until further orders.” Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned Counsel appearing petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 11. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Successor-in-Office of the Joint Collector cannot review the order passed by his predecessor in Office in exercise of the revisional powers under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and therefore the order impugned in these Writ Petitions is liable to be quashed.

In a way his contention is that the Collector can exercise his revisional powers under Section 166-B in respect of orders passed by a Subordinate Officer. It is also contended by him that when a separate procedure has been prescribed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act to assail the orders passed by the appellate authority, invocation of powers by the District Collector under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli is wholly unwarranted. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the Judgment of this in ANNAPURNA CO-OP.HOUSING SOCIETY v. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANOTHER [1] . Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 11, does not dispute the proposition of law that the Successor-in-Office of the Joint Collector cannot exercise revisional powers under Section 166-B in respect of the orders passed by the Predecessor-in-Office of the Joint Collector.

For better appreciation, I may refer Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli:- “(1)Subject to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358F, the Government or any Revenue officer not lower in rank of a Collector the Settlement commissioner of Land Records may call fro the record of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and may make suitable order in that behalf; Provided that no order or decision affecting the rights of the ryots shall be modified or annulled unless the concerned parties are summoned and heard. (2) Every Revenue Officer lower in rank to a Collector or Settlement Commissioner may call for the records of a case or proceedings for a subordinate department and satisfy himself that order or decision passed or the proceeding taken is regular, legal and proper and if, in his opinion, any order or decision or, proceedings should be modified or annulled, he shall put up the file of the case with his opinion to the Collector or Settlement Commissioner as the case may be.