Writ Petition No. 27829 of 2008 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- L NARASIMHA REDDY
Outcome
Allowed
Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the
Provisions considered
Judgment
The petitioner challenges a notice, dated 08.09.2008, issued by the Joint Collector, the third respondent herein. He exercised the powers of revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and required the parties including the petitioner to appear before him. He intended to verify the various steps taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the fifth respondent herein, in certain proceedings pending before him.
Operative part
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. A perusal of the notice discloses that the revision was taken up on suo motu. Though the Tahsildar is shown as one of the petitioners, on instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that the Tahsildar did not file any revision before the third respondent. Even from a perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that the proceedings under the Act are pending before the fifth respondent and through its order, dated 19.12.2003, W.P.No.26130 of 2003, this Court directed that the claims of the petitioners therein shall also be considered. In case proceedings before the fifth respondent have not been finalized as yet, the occasion for the third respondent to intervene does not arise. Even if any orders have been passed, the aggrieved parties have to work out their grievance in accordance with law. The initiation of suo motu proceedings by the third respondent, in this factual scenario, cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the parties to the proceedings pending or disposed of by the fifth respondent shall work out their remedies, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ REDDY,J Dt:29.01.2009 L.NARASIMHA
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.
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.