District Collector Can't Challenge Govt Order, Bound By State's Hierarchical Decision: AP High Court

Dismissing pleas by Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) and the District Collector challenging a GO granting ryotwari patta rights, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the District Collector designated by government to perform statutory duties, cannot file a writ petition against the Government's own revisional order.

“An Officer designated by the Government to perform statutory duties cannot file a writ petition to challenge the Government's own orders, as the Officer is fundamentally bound by the State's hierarchical decision. This is clearly impermissible in law besides being an antithesis to the 'doctrine of finality' in view of the judgment referred to supra,” Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed, while referring to the Apex Court's ruling in Roop Chand vs State of Punjab.

The Court said that “delegate” means little more than an agent, adding that an agent does not exercise personal powers, but rather acts on behalf of the principal.

“Because the authority emanates from the statute directly to the Government, any officer the Government appoints to exercise that statutory power is doing so on behalf of the Government,” the Court said.

It added, “The District Collector, who passed the order, was delegated power under the statute by the Government, as such, he is not exercising any administrative power. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government pleader that the District Collector is an aggrieved party by the order of the State Government cannot be countenanced at all,” holding that the petition by the District Collector was “not maintainable.”

However, as GVMC had also challenged the same Government order, the Court proceeded to deal with the merits of the case in both petitions.

Not Barred by Limitation

The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the claim of unofficial respondents seeking ryotwari patta was barred by limitation. The petitioners pointed out that the Settlement Fair Adangal (revenue record) was prepared during the settlement operations in 1959, but the claimants approached the authorities, under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, much later in 1995.

The Court noted that the application of the unofficial respondents filed before the Settlement Officer under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, was already rejected on the ground of limitation in 1995, and the same was subsequently upheld in revision.

However, when the matter reached High Court in 1999, the Court in its 2003 order directed the Government to consider their representations on merits, without being influenced by the earlier findings.

The court held that this earlier High Court direction had put the issue of limitation to rest.

“This Court is of the view that the directions issued in W.P.No.9038 of 1999, directing the Government to consider the representations of the unofficial respondents on merits, had put to rest the dispute of limitation once for all,” the Court held.

Nature Of Land and Possession

The petitioners contended that the disputed land was “Water Works Poramboke” and therefore could not be assigned to private individuals. The Court rejected the contention after examining the Settlement Fair Adangal and other revenue records.

It noted that the Settlement Fair Adangal entries recording the predecessors of the private respondents as ryots in possession of the land were subsequently modified without any proceedings by striking off the relevant extracts.

“Therefore, the records clearly established that on the date of survey and settlement operation and at the time of preparation of Settlement Fair Adangal, the unofficial respondents' forefathers were in possession of the subject land and their names were registered in the Settlement Fair Adangal as roitys,” the Court said, holding that the subject lands were not “Water Works Poramboke”.

The Court also noted the existence of cist receipts pertaining to 1929, 1939, 1946 and 1947 and other documentary material supporting the unofficial respondents' claim of possession.

“The undisputed fact remains that the predecessors of the unofficial respondents are ryots and the land is zeroity. Their names are recorded in the Settlement Fair Adangal and other related records. They were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property prior to the cut off date 01.07.1945, which is also evident from the various proceedings filed before this Court and discussed elaborately by the Revisional Authority in the impugned order,” the Court said.

The Court found that the Revisional Authority had considered the nature of the land, the possession claimed by the respondents and the relevant pre- and post-abolition records before arriving at its conclusion.

Scope of Certiorari Jurisdiction

The Court said that the petitioners had failed to make out a case for issuance of a writ of certiorari against the revisional order.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgments in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das and Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, the Court reiterated that certiorari is a supervisory, and not appellate, jurisdiction.

“The writ petitioners could not make out any case that warrants interference of this Court, more particularly, a Writ of Certiorari which, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be issued on mere asking,” the Court held.

The Court upheld the revisional order, observing, “The revisional order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Revisional Authority does not warrant any interference, as the writ petitioners did not make out any substantive ground for issuance of Writ of Certiorari.”

The Court dismissed both writ petitions, finding them devoid of merit.

Background

The dispute concerned various land parcels measuring 11.15 acres in Mudasarlova village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. Mudasarlova village formed part of the erstwhile Vizianagaram Estate, which was abolished following the enactment of the Estates Abolition Act.

The predecessors of the private respondents claimed ryotwari patta rights over the land, relying on their alleged long-standing possession and entries in the revenue records.

Their applications under Section 11(a) were initially rejected by the Settlement Officer in 1995 on the ground of limitation. The subsequent revisions before the Director of Settlements and the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records were also unsuccessful.

The claimants thereafter approached the High Court. In 2003, the High Court directed the Government to consider their representations on merits without being influenced by the earlier findings.

Following the direction, the District Collector rejected the claimant's case in 2006, finding that the they had failed to establish possession prior to July 1, 1945 and that the land had been resumed by the Government.

Later, the claimants filed a revision petition before the Government. The Special Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, exercising revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 11, allowed the claimants' revision on December 21, 2017.

GVMC and the District Collector thereafter challenged the Government's order before the High Court.

Click Here To Read/Download Order