Rayavarapu Palakondaiah vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddapah and others

A.S. Bhate, J.—These two writ appeals are disposed of by the common order as the fads are identical.

The facts in WA No.1538 of 1988 are being stated for purpose of understanding the dispute between the parties. Survey No.585/3A/1A measuring 0.91 cents of Ukkayapalli village in Cuddapah district was originally assigned to Smt. Swarna Munemma, who was a harijan and a landless poor lady. The assignment was in the year 1926. It appears that the said land was transferred by her to one Mr. D. Venkata Subbaiah. This was some time in 1963. The transferee Mr. D. Venkata Sitbbaiah did not belong to depressed class. The Tahsildar Cuddapah cancelled the assignment in favour of Smt. Swarna Munemma for violation of Andhra Pradesh Board Standing Orders (hereinafter referred to as the ''Board Standing Orders'') vide proceedings B. 11994/ 79 dated 19-8-1980. Sri D. Venkata Subbaiah then filed an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddapah against the cancellation of Tahsildar''s order because as a consequence of cancellation of assignment, the land was to be resumed by the State. The Revenue Divisional Officer confirmed the resumption order and dismissed the appeal on 25-2-1981. Against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri D. Venkata Subbaiah preferred revision to the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector held that the action of Tahsildar in cancelling the assignment was not proper because in the meantime the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the ''1977 Act'') had come into force. Therefore, the Joint Collector by order dated 6-5-1982 directed the Tahsildar to take action under 1977 Act. Consequently the Tahsildar issued show cause notice to the occupants and resumed the land purporting to act u/s 4(b) of the 1977 Act by proceedings dated 22-2-1983. Again appeal was preferred against this order to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed on the ground that there was no appeal provided under 1977 Act. The Tahsildar then assigned the land in question to present petitioner R. Palakondaiah. This order of assigning the land was challenged by the legal heir of Smt. Swarna Munemma. Respondent No.4 in the writ petition is the said admitted legal heir. However, the Collector declined to interfere with the assignment saying that earlier order passed on 6-5-1982 was already existing. This order was passed on 5-7-1984. Aggrieved by this order of the Collector, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Commissioner. In the appeal the Revenue Commissioner after hearing respondent No.4/appellant and the present writ petitioner, held that the assignment made by the Tahsildar in favour of writ petitioner was patently erroneous in view of the provisions of 1977 Act and remitted back the matter for having a fresh look by referring to the provisions of 1977 Act. This order was passed on 22-4-1987 in proceeding Nos.SPL.B4/ 2537/84.

In consequence of the Commissioner''s order the matter once more reached the Revenue Divisional Officer, who on going through the provisions of 1977 Act came to the conclusion that the transfer in favour of Sri D. Venkata Subbaiah by Smt. Swarna Munemma was in violation of the provisions of assignment but 1977 Act mandates that such assigned land must go back to the original assignee, as this was the first transfer made by the original assignee in contravention of the provisions of 1977 Act. So holding, he cancelled assignment in favour of the writ petitioner and reassigned the land in favour of respondent No.4, who is the admitted legal heir of the original-assignee. Smt. Swarna Munemma. This order was passed on 10-8-1987.

By writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Commissioner on 22-4-1987 as well as the order of reassigning the land to respondent No.4 on 10-8-1987.

The learned single Judge held that by the ultimate order the object to Section 4(1) of the 1977 Act has been achieved and therefore, the learned single Judge observed:

"It says in terms that whenever the transfer of assigned land is made by the assignee, the transfer could be cancelled, but the land should not be resumed as it should be restored back to the original assignee. Hence, I do not find any statutory infraction warranting interference under extraordinary jurisdiction."

So observing the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petitioner has now challenged the said order before us. It is contended in the first place that there was no provision of appeal under the provisions of 1977 Act at the relevant time and hence the order of assignment in favour of the writ petitioner had become final. The appeal entertained was without jurisdiction and hence the proceedings were nullity. Secondly it is contended that the petitioner has made lot of investment in the land after it was assigned in his favour and therefore, it is unjust to deprive him of it. We are not at all impressed by any of the arguments. Section 3 of the 1977 Act prohibits the landless poor person, in whose favour any land has been assigned, from transferring any land either by purchase, gift, lease or otherwise. Further it says that any transfer shall be deemed to be null and void. Section 4 provides that on satisfaction that the provisions of the 1977 Act have been contravened, the authority may by order I take possession of such assigned land after evicting the person in possession in prescribed manner and restore the assigned land to the original assignee or his legal heir. It is only when it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such original assignee or his heir, the authorities can resume the assigned land for reassigning to landless poor persons in accordance with the Rules for the time being in force. The proviso says that restoration of such assigned land shall not be done to the original assignee or his legal heir on more than one occasion, meaning thereby that if the original assignee transfers the land in violation of the provisions of 1977 Act, the authorities can restore the land back to him on one such error committed by him. After the original assignee is put back in possession if he transfers the said land on second occasion, then the original assignee will not be given back the possession but the land would be resumed back. In view of this clear provision of law, it is manifest that the authorities were bound to restore possession of the land to respondent No.4 after evicting Sri D. Venkata Subbaiah, the unauthorised transferee. The original error committed was rightly rectified. Full justice has been done by achieving the object of Section 4 of the 1977 Act by the impugned orders. The learned single Judge declined to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that substantial justice had been done in the case. It is well known that one of the limitations, imposed by the Courts on themselves, is that the Courts will not exercise jurisdiction in such class of cases where, substantial justice has been done. The Courts refuse to exercise their discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the impugned act, the error or excess by the authority has resulted in manifest injustice. We are of the view that even if it is assumed that no appeal was provided against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Collector, ultimately injustice has been rectified. There can be absolutely no doubt that respondent No.4 alone was entitled to possession of the land in the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely because due to some error the writ petitioner was assigned the land after dispossessing unlawful assignee Mr. D. Venkata Subbaiah, the petitioner did not acquire any right, statutory or otherwise, to the said land.

Apart from the above conclusion, we are of the view that it is not correct to contend that appeal did not lie to the Joint Collector against the order of assignment in favour of the petitioner. The assignment of land was not under the provisions of the 1977 Act. The 1977 Act is meant for prohibition of transfer of certain assigned lands and enumerates consequences of breach of this mandate. The assigned land, if not restored to the original assignee, has to be assigned to a new landless poor person in accordance with the rules for the time being in force. Therefore, the assignment in favour of the petitioner, which was made by Tahsildar erroneously was under the Rules of assignment existing. The said rules are to be found in Board Standing Orders. The scheme of the Board Standing Orders consists of orders and each order has paras. Order 15 deals with the assignments of lands. Para 15 of the Order 15 prescribes that every decision of assignment made by Tahsildar, Divisional Officer or Collector is amenable to one appeal. Para 16 provides for admission of time barred appeals and para 18 for revision. As the appeal in question was for challenging the assignment in favour of the petitioner, the said appeal was perfectly in order as per the Board''s Standing Orders. Thus we find no merit whatsoever in the contention of the writ petitioner.

The last contention that the petitioner has made substantial investment has no relevance to the decision of the case. If the petitioner made any investment or improvement in the land, of which he obtained illegal assignment, he has to blame himself.

It was attempted to argue that the petitioner is also a poor person and belongs to backward class. In our opinion this is totally irrelevant when the law mandates that the original assignee or his legal heirs are entitled to be put back in possession for one error on their part of transferring the land in violation of provisions of 1977 Act.

In view of the facts and circumstances, the learned Judges was absolutely justified in dismissing the writ petition. We find no reason to take a different view. Both the writ appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.