Kapa Veerabhadurudu and others vs Special Deputy Collector, West Godavari District

Four petitioners file this writ petition. They prayed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the sole respondent in issuing the notice-dated 28-12-1998 to the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India (the Articles are referred to in the prayer itself). They also seek a consequential direction to the respondent not to dispossess the petitioners from the land covered by RS No.8 admeasuring Ac.9-00 situated at Nagampallam village of Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.

The averments in the affidavit filed by the first petitioner on behalf of other petitioners are as follows:--

The petitioners allege that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in question. They submit that they purchased the land jointly from Smt. Madipati Satgurudevi who got the land from her grandmother Smt. K. Chinnamma as Pasupu Kumkuma. In turn, Smt. K. Chinnamma, it is stated, purchased the land in the year 1935 from one Pothireddi Gangaiah and Mr. Veeraswamy under a registered document No.44t/1935 dated 4-7-1935. Therefore, it is stated that since 1966 any non-tribal never held the land.

It is the allegation of the petitioners that the Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, lodged a complaint before the respondent alleging that the petitioners were in possession of the above land in contravention of the A.P. Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulations 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (hereafter called the Regulations). Taking cognizance of the complaint, the respondent initiated action. The petitioners filed their written statement along with the documents and the respondent, it is alleged, and that after an elaborate enquiry by an order dated 29-8-1984 found that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in question. According to the petitioners, the Special Deputy Tahsildar did not file any appeal against the order of the respondent dated 29-8-1984 and that the orders passed by the respondent in SR Nos.120 of 1982, 12? of 1982, 204 of 1982, 295 of 1982 have become final.

All of a sudden after a lapse of 20 years, it is alleged that the respondent issued a notice to the petitioners vide SRNo.546 of 1998 dated 28-12-1998 alleging that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question in contravention of the provisions of the Regulations. The petitioners approached the respondent and produced the earlier orders passed by the respondent. But as the respondent refused to look into the order and openly threatening to dispossess the petitioners, they approached this Court.

The show-cause notice dated 28-12-1998 (issued about one year ago) has not been filed along with the writ petition. The order of the respondent dated 29-8-1994 said to have been passed is also not filed. A copy of the order in AP No.96/ 78/82 dated 26-11-1997 is annexed to the writ petition. The said order is passed by the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad. This is an order in appeal u/s 9(3) of A.P. Regulation 2/70 against the order of the Settlement Officer, Eluru in SR No.533, 523 and 524 of 1977 dated 30-7-1977. As seen from the order, the four petitioners herein were the appellants. The Director of Settlements allowed their appeal holding that their possession is valid under Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1/70. This order of the Director of Settlements makes a reference to the orders of the respondent as follows:

"Besides the above a perusal of the orders passed by the Special Deputy Collector (TW) Eluru in SR Nos.120 of 1982, 122 of 1982, 294 of 1982 and 296 of 1982 dated 22-2-1988, 441 of 1979 dated 29-3-1984, 462 of 1979 dated 26-6-1985, 120 of 1982 dated 21-2-1988, 121 of 1982 dated 21-2-1988 clearly show that the competent authority under the provisions of LT Enactments had enquired into the possession and enjoyment of the appellants over the suit land under the LT Act 1 of 1917 and LT Reg. 1/59 as amended by Reg. 1/70 and finally held that the appellants possession was valid under the provisions of the LT Enactments."

Relying on this, the learned Counsel submits that the earlier orders of the respondent operate as res judicata, that there is no provision in the Regulations to initiate any action when once the respondent decides in favour of the non-tribal, that the petitioners have purchased the land from non-tribal and, therefore, the provisions of the Regulations are not attracted and that the second show-cause notice issued after a lapse of twenty years is without jurisdiction.

It is, however, submitted by the learned Counsel that after receiving the show-cause notice dated 28-12-1998, the petitioners submitted written statement, but the respondent has not passed any orders and, therefore, they are approaching this Court as the impugned show-cause notice is without jurisdiction.

The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submits that though the show-cause notice was issued on 28-12-1988, the petitioners have approached this Court after one year after filing their written statement before the respondent and hence the writ petition should be dismissed in limine. He further submits that the provisions of CPC are not applicable to the proceedings under the Regulations and, therefore, the question of res judicata does not arise.

The High. Court made Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977 by virtue of the power under Article 225 of the Constitution. These Rules regulate the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of clause (a) of Rule 6 are relevant and are extracted as under:

"6(a)(1) Every petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit and all the documents serially numbered as Exs.Pl, P2 etc., including rules, Bye-laws, notifications etc., relied upon by the petitioner and the order challenged or a certified copy thereof and copies of ail documents which shall be certified by the party filing it to be a true and correct copy of the original of such documents if it is not a certified copy.

(2) When such petition is directed against the order of a quasi-judicial nature passed by any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, or any other like authority or made in any disciplinary proceedings by a copy of the award the report of the Enquiry Officer, the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Order of the Appellate Authority passed on such Appeal, if any, and shall be marked and serially numbered as mentioned in sub-rule (1) above.

Therefore, it is incumbent that every petition directed against an order of quasi-judicial authority shall be accompanied by a copy of such order. In this case, the show cause notice alleged to have been issued by the respondent has not been filed. When the case is called during prelunch-lunch session, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the original copy of the show cause notice was filed and by mistake, the Registry did not properly stitch it. Again when the case was called during post-lunch session, the learned Counsel submitted that the Registry ought not to have registered and numbered the case in the absence of the impugned show-cause notice. As the show-cause notice challenged is itself dated 28-12-1998 - issued about one year ago - I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the case. The two questions that arise for consideration are:

(1) Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the show cause notice issued by a statutory authority?

(2) Whether the petitioners are not guilty of delay and laches in approaching this Court after a period of one year after receipt of the show cause notice?

This Court has repeatedly requested the learned Counsel for the petitioner to advert to these questions. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged the submissions, which are already noticed above. There is no effort, much less appreciable effort on the part of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to make submissions with reference to the relevant questions that fell for consideration. He submits that after receiving the show-cause notice dated 28-12-1998 the petitioners filed written statement and instead of passing appropriate orders, the respondent is openly proclaiming that he will evict the petitioners from their lands for allegedly being in possession of the land in contravention of Regulation 3 of the Regulations. This is strongly refuted by the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.

The Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulations declare any transfer of land in a Tribal area by a non-Tribal to a non-Tribal or Tribal to a non-Tribal as void. Appropriate authorities are created for protecting the interest of the Tribals in the Tribal areas. As seen from the orders of the Director of Settlements, the issue has been adjudicated in favour of the petitioners. In fact, they also placed the copy of the orders passed by the respondent in 1984 and raised all their objections in their written statement. Even before the respondent could pass any orders, they approached this Court after one year of the receipt of the show-cause notice. The adjudicatory powers under Land Transfer Regulations are vested in the Special Deputy Collector at the preliminary level and the District Collector/ Agency Court at the appellate level. Both these authorities are quasi-judicial authorities. Therefore, the impugned show-cause notice is issued by the quasi-judicial authority in exercise of the powers under the statute viz., Regulation 1/59 as amended by Regulation 1/70. The question is whether the writ petition is maintainable when a quasi-judicial authority issues a show-cause notice.

Generally speaking, at the stage of show-cause notice, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not attracted. This is because, a Court of judicial review is always inclined to allow the quasi- judicial authority vested with the power to exercise discretion and discharge its statutory functions. If even at the show cause notice, this Court interferes and records a finding; in a given case the findings may as well go against the citizens and deprive them of other remedies under law. When a statutory authority issues a show cause notice, the recipient of the show cause notice has ample opportunity to approach the quasi-judicial authority and place his/her case before such authority that will decide in accordance with law. If an order passed by the quasi-judicial authority goes against the person, it is always open to such person to avail the remedy of appeal and then approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, if it is permissible under law. A writ petition against a show-cause notice is, ordinarily, not maintainable.

In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, , the respondent was charge-sheeted and he was dismissed after enquiry. The U.P. Public Service Tribunal affirmed the order of dismissal. The High Court of Allahabad set aside the dismissal order. But, during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, as the respondent retired, the High Court declared that he shall be entitled to pensionary benefits, however, giving liberty to the Government to initiate fresh proceedings, if it is permissible. The Slate Government issued a show cause notice in accordance with Article 470(b) of Civil Service Regulations proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The show-cause notice contained allegations of misconduct regarding financial irregularities. The respondent submitted explanation to the show cause notice. Even before the same could be examined, he approached the High Court and filed a writ petition questioning the show cause notice. A learned single Judge quashed the impugned show-cause notice on the ground that as the disciplinary proceedings were quashed by the High Court, it was not open to the State Government to issue another show-cause notice under Article 470(b) of the Civil Service Regulations. In the appeal filed by the State Government, the Supreme Court held that the High Court committed error in quashing the show-cause notice and further observed as follows:

"The High Court was not justified in quashing the show-cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a Government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show-cause, ordinarily the Government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the Courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show-cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature. The High Court in our opinion ought not to have interfered with the show cause notice."

In Special Officer, Urban Land Ceilings, Nampally, Hyderabad and others Vs. M. Vijayalakshmi and others, , a Division Bench of this Court was concerned with the validity of a show-cause notice issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh u/s 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. White holding that a writ petition seeking judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage of show-cause notice is not maintainable, Their Lordships Hon''ble the Chief Justice Umesh Chandra Benerjee, (as His Lordship then was) and Hon''ble Mr. Justice P. Ramakrishnama Raju, held as follows:

"Two principal issues arise for consideration: Firstly, the power of the State Government to review the order in terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act and secondly, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of interference at a stage of the proceeding when the Governmental authority did deem it fit to exercise its statutory power and has issued a show-cause notice in terms therewith. Turning attention on to the second count first, it is rather pertinent to note thai scope of judicial reviewability in a situation like the present one is extremely limited and the High Court would be rather slow and loath to intervene at this stage of proceedings since the authority ought to be given a free hand and a full play in the mailer of enquiring into the circumstances which prompted the authority concerned to issue the show cause notice. It is in this context, the observations of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of I.T.C. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , seem to be rather apposite wherein the learned single Judge observed that ordinarily, a writ petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice in as much as, when a show cause notice is issued, the party gets an opportunity to place his case before the authority concerned and there are elaborate proceedings by way of an appeal and/or revision against such order passed in such proceeding....."

(emphasis mine)

In this case, admittedly, the petitioners submitted written statement after receiving the show cause notice. At this stage any interference by this Court would result in miscarriage of justice, if any finding were recorded against the petitioners. Further the questions whether the sale deed dated 4-7-1935 under which Smt. G. Chinnamma purchased the property from Mr. P. Gangaiah and Mr. Veeraswamy is valid, whether Smt. G. Chinnamma gave the property to Smt. M. Satyagurudevi towards Pasupu Kumkuma and whether the petitioners purchased the property from Smt. Satyagurudevi are all matters to be considered by the respondent. That the respondent already decided in favour of the petitioners on 29-8-1984 may also be relevant when the respondent decide the matter. At this stage, this writ petition is not maintainable. Further, the petitioners have approached this Court after about one year of the receipt of the show-cause notice. This is a strong circumstance, which goes against the petitioners.

For these reasons, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.

After the pronouncement of the judgment, Mr. Sitaram, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the show-cause notices issued by the respondent number of writ petitions are filed and they are admitted. Therefore, he requests this Court to admit this writ petition and post along with the said batch of writ petitions. In this writ petition, I have followed the judgment of the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of this Court and dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, I do not see any reason to acede to the request of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.