Upholding the delegation powers of Settlement Officers to District Collectors

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATERE : ANDHRA PRADESH : AT HYDERABAD

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
MONDAY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY FOUR

PRESENT :
THE HQN'BLE JUSTICE S.R., NAYAK
WRIT PETITION NOS. 5079 AND 563O OF 1992

Between
Lolabatta Venkataraju . Petitioner

And

1. The Chief Secretary, Govt of A. P.., Sectt. Buildings, Hyderabad .
2. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada .
3. The Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District on behalf of Kunjana Peda Abbayi.
4. K.Nookaraju.

(R4 is impleaded as per Court Order, date : 4-4-1994 in W,. P..M.. P. Mo. 3108/93)

Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit Filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Centioriari, call for the records relating to Appeal No. 5/91 on the file of the 2nd Respondent i.e., District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and quash the order in Appeal No. 5/91 dated 28.3.1992 passed by the 2 nd respondent herein.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. I.V.Ranga Charya

Counsel for the Respondents : 1/03 Govt. pleader for Social Welfare

Counsel for the Respondent No. : 4 Mr. A.Ramalingeswara Rao, Advocate.

W.P. No. 5630 of 1993:

Bantupally Appa Rao . Petitioner.

Verses

1. The Chief Secretray to government of A.P. Secretariat Buildings , Hyderabad ,.
2. The District Collector, East Godavari District,
3. The Project Officer I.T.D.A, Rampachodavaram on behalf of Sri Mulsala Sankarayya . Petitioner

Petitioner under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to Appeal No. 3/91 on the File of the 2nd respondent - District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and quash the order in Appeal No. 3/91 dt .28.3.1992 passed by the 2nd Respondent.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.I.V.Rangacharya.
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : Govt. Pleader for Social Welfare.

The Court made the following O R D E R :

W.P.NOS. 5079 AND 5630 OF 1992.

(Common Order)

The common order made by the District Collector dated 28-3-1992 allowing the appeals preferred by the Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Rampachodavaram, is called in question by the Project Officer, ITDA suffice to say that those appeals were preferred b the Project Officer, I.T.D.A. against the orders made by the Settlement Officer dated 29-10-1974 and 12-8-1975 in favour of the petitioner in W.P.Wo.5079/92 and the petitioner in W.P.No.5630 of 1992 respectively granting pattas of the lands in question.

The learned counsel for the parties was heard.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the order made by the District Collector is one without jurisdiction and consequently it is null and void. The learned counsel also argued that assuming for the sake of argument the District Collector had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by the Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Rampachodavavam, nevertheless he could not have entertained the appeals on the ground of inordinate delay. Dilating the first contention the learned counsel submitted that the Legislature has in its wisdom created Director of Settlements as the Appeallate authority to decide the appeal preferred against the orders made by the settlement Officers under Sec.9 of the Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969. Therefore it is not permissible for the State Government to meddle with the Appeallate Authority created by the parent Act in so-called exercise of the executive power or the power available to it under Sec.35 of the Regulation. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the Tribals as well as the learned Government Pleader pointed out that having regard to the rule making power provided in Sec.35 of the Regulation, it is quite clear that, the State Government is armed with necessary power to delegate the powers conferred by the Regulation to any Authority or officer or person. No doubt under Sec.9 of the Act the Director of Settlement was an appellate authority to entertain the appeal preferred against the orders of the Settlement Officers. But, it is permissible for the State Government in exercise of its b/d delegated power under Sec.35 of the Regulation to delegate that appellate power to the District Collector. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to note that the Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969 is one Regulation and not a body of Regulations. The intention of the Legislature is quite clear having regard to the language employed by it in many places. Everywhere it has referred to the whole body of the Regulation as one Regulation. If that is kept in mind, it cannot be said that the State Government lacks competence to delegate appellate power under Section 9 of the Regulation to the District Collector or some other authority or some other officer. In the present case the appellate power earlier vested in the Director of Settlement has been delegated to the District Collector. Therefore I do not find anything wrong in exercise of the delegated power on the part of the State Government. It is also relevant to note that the rule framed in exercise of the power given to the State Government under Sec.35(2) (e) on 9-8--90 is not called in question by the petitioner. In other-words it remain unchallenged. Therefore the first cotention of the petitioner should fail and it is accordingly rejected.

Coming to the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector ought not to have entertained the appeal having regard to the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He submitted that there was nearly 17 years delay in filing the appeal. It is relevant to note that the same contention was advanced before the District Collector also. The District. Collector For the reasons stated by him on point No.1 of the order recorded his satisfaction that sufficient cause wag shown for the delay in filing the appeal. It is relevant to note that the appeals were not filed by the tribals but by the Project Officer, ITDA on behalf of the depressed innocent Tribals. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue quite fairly submitted that orders were made by the Settlement Officer in total violation of mandatory provisions of Regulation governing procedure and Tribals were not notified in the matter. The learned counsel for the Tribals also submitted that the Project Officer and Tribals were not aware of the orders made by the Settlement Officer granting pattas in favour of the petitioners in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The District Collector, after taking into account all these matters, has recorded his satisfaction that the delay in approaching the appellate authority was properly explained and I do not find any ground let alone justifiable ground to upset the satisfaction recorded by the District Collector.

No other point was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

N.B: The C.T. in W.P.No. 5079/92 is amended.

Substitute this order for the order dispatched on 26-4-1994.

S/d-- Bh. Vissam Raju,

Asst. Registrar.

/ True Copy /

To

1. The Chief Secretary , Government of A,, P.
2. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada .
3. The Project Officer, I.T.D.A, Rampachodavaram E.G. District
4. Two C. C. s. to the G.P. for Social Welfare (OUT)
5. The Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Rampachodavaram on behalf of Sri. Mulasala Sankarayya.
6. One CD copy.
7. One C.C. to Mr. A. Ramalingeswara Rao, Advocate (opuc)

Appeals were dismissed, pattas were granted

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY, SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS, A.P.HYDERABAD

  Present : Sri M.Narayana Rao, I.A.S.
Commissioner
C.SS & LR's Case No.L3/1140/92 , Dt. 12-09-1997
Between:

•  Sri Badireddi Tatarao, S/o Nukaraju,.
•  Smt.Badireddi Simhachalam,
W/o. Nukaraju ... Appellants.

AND

•  Project Officer, I.T.D.A., R.Chodavram.
•  Kichela Lakshmayya (died)
S/o. Nukayya
Per L.Rs. 1. Ammanna (wife)
2. K.Surya Rao (son)
3. K.Chanda Rao (son)
4. K.Somalingam (son)
5. K.Nookaraju (son) ... Respondents.

C.SS & LR's Case No. L3/1142/92 , Dt.12-09-1997

Between:
1. Nemala Tarakamma ... Appellant.

AND

•  Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Rampachodavarm
•  Chundru Dharmaraju,
S/o. Lakshmayya ... Respondents.
ORDER:
These are 2 appeals filed u/s 9 of A.P. Regulation 2/69 against the common order of the District Collector, East Godavari District in A.P. No.27/91 and 24/91 dated 30-03-1992 wherein he allowed the appeals prefered by the Respondents herein and set aside orders of the Settlement officer (Mutta Abolition) Peddapuram in Case No.2902/73 and 2790/73, Dt. 29-10-1974 and 28-10-1974 respectively, granting patta in favour of the petitioners for the subject lands.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The Settlement Officer conducted suo-moto enquiry in the above 2 cases for grant of ryotwari patta u/s 8 in respect of the following lands situated in the erstwhile Yellavaram taluq of East Godavari district.

Case No. Name Sy.No. Extent Mutta Village 1 2 3. 4 5 6

2902/73 Smt.Badireddy 29/1 1.99 Pandraprolu Chavitidibbala Simhachalam W/o.Nookaraju

2790/73 Smt.Nemala 22/1 1.56 Yerugonda Gummaripalem Tarakamma w/o. Katyayya 22/3 1.10

The Settlement officer, allowed the claims on the ground that the claimants were in continuous possession and enjoyment over the schedule lands for more than 8 years prior to the notified date.

Aggrieved by the above orders, the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., on behalf of tribals filed appeals before the District Collector who in his impugned orders cancelled the patta on the following grounds.

•  The Claimants have not obtained the permission of the Collector under Regulation 1 of 1959 to possess the land.

•  The Lease Deeds were not registered as required u/s 107 of the T.P.Act and signed by the Muttadar only and not by the Respondents and receipts were fabricated.

•  The Ryotwari Pattas wee granted without proper enquiry and scrutiny of documents by the S.O.

Aggrieved by the above orders, the appellants filed appeals before Commissioner, S.S. & L.R., on the following main grounds:

•  The Project Officer, I.T.D.A., filed an appeal before the Collector with a delay of more than 16 years. The Collector did not give any notice on the delay condonation petition and the delay was condoned.

•  Section 5 provides for grant of patta even for non-tribals provided they are in possession for 8 years prior to the notified date. The question of taking permission under Regulation 1/59 does not arise since the land was never in possession of any non-tribal prior for 1917.

•  The Lower Court failed to note that the Agricultural leases need not necessarily be registered. An un-registered lease deed can be considered and looked into for collateral purpose.

•  Both the cases came up for final hearing before me, first on 30.12.96 when learned counsel for petitioners and Special Government Pleader wee heard and Learned Counsel for R2 absent, but were reopened at the latte's request. On 9.7.97; the Junior for Sri Lakshmana Sarma, Counsel for the appellants and Sri G.Satyanarayana Special Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondent 1, were present and reiterated their arguments. Sri K.S.Murthy, the Counsel for the Respondent 2 was absent for the second consecutive occasion in spite of service of notice. Hence, the cases are reserved for orders on merits.

The connected records have been perused. No additional material was filed by either side before me or the Collector. Hence, the entire matter depends on the strength of the material produced before the S.O., As regards condonation of delay, neither the Tribal Respondents nor the I.T.D.A., were parties before the S.O., and hence are not governed by Limitation with reference to those proceedings. Further, the Collector has rightly applied the principles laid down in W.A.No.1879/88 dated 11.8.89 of the A.P. High Court and AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353, while condoning the delay even assuming the existence thereof. Hence, the first ground of appeal is rejected. As for the third ground no authority has been shown to the effect that agricultural leases need not be registered or even signed by both parties. In the circumstances, I agree with the findings of the Collector on this point with reference to S.107 of the Transfer of Property Act. A claim under legally unacceptable purported leases without Survey Nos., or local names or witnesses and not supported by production of cultivation accounts/ Adangals, the possession cannot be deemed lawful and hence the second ground also fails.

The purported receipts do not indicate the Sy.Nos., or local names of the land in respect of which the payment is accepted. The same claimants who stated before the Spl.Dy.Tahsildar, and Special Tahsildar that they have no lease documents or receipts with them in support of their claims produced the same before the S.O., bearing tell-tale evidence in both cases of over-writing against Eksala entry and interpolation of the date in the first case. The S.O., did not verify the relevant Estate/Village Records nor the claimants produced the certified copies there of before the Collector or this Court which leads to one to believe that the documents produced are false and created for getting patta.

Thus there are no merits in the Appeals which are dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Court .
Sd/-
COMMISSIONER, SS. & L.R.
//ATTESTED//