Writ Petition No. 35798 of 2012 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Judgment
The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is for a direction to declare the proceedings of the 2nd respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) issued on 06.11.2012, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in his favour should not be cancelled, as without jurisdiction and illegal.
Operative part
Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would draw attention of this Court to Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the “Act”) whereunder it is only against an order passed by the Recording Authority (Tahsildar) either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, does an appeal lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The suo motu power of revision is conferred, under Section 9 of the Act, only on the Collector which expression, under Section 2(2) of the Act, is defined to include a Joint Collector. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra and Rayalaseema area) while fairly stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not been conferred suo motu powers under the Act would, however, contend that what is under challenge in this Writ Petition is only a show cause notice, and the petitioner can as well file his reply thereto before the 2nd respondent raising all pleas including lack of jurisdiction. I see no merit in such a submission. A show cause notice issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction can always be questioned in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As it is not in dispute that no suo motu powers are conferred under the Act on the 2nd respondent and the show cause notice issued by him, exercising such suo motu powers, is clearly without jurisdiction, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to direct the petitioner to submit jurisdiction of an authority who inherent jurisdiction. The fact, however, remains that the Collector/Joint Collector have been conferred suo motu powers of revision under Section 9 of the Act. The impugned order must be, and is accordingly, set aside. This order shall not, however, preclude the 1st respondent/Joint Collector, if need be, taking action accordance with law including under Section 9 of the Act. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Date: 21.11.2012 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.