AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.V.S. Rao, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order being CCLA''s Ref. No. P5/335/2010, dated 12.04.2010, of the first respondent. By the said order, while admitting the revision petition filed by the second respondent and calling for the lower Court records, the first respondent granted status quo orders till 12.08.2010 and posted the matter for further hearing on 12.08.2010.
The writ petition is filed virtually for a writ of Prohibition on the ground that under The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, (the Act) the Commissioner is not vested with any powers of revision against the order of the Joint Collector and that said revision only lies to the High Court u/s 91 of the Act.
It is the case of petitioner that his father Chinna Mallaiah was a protective (sic. protected) tenant of Narayana Prasad in respect of land admeasuring Acs.19.02 1/2 guntas, who was granted a certificate u/s 38-E of the Act. The respondents 2 and 3 contend that the landholders sold the property in their favour after the protected tenant surrendered the land. They, accordingly, approached the Tahasildar for acceptance of surrender, in vain. Therefore, they filed an appeal u/s 90 of the Act before the Joint Collector, who dismissed the same on 12.03.2010 placing reliance on Kotaiah and Another Vs. Property Association of the Baptist Churches (Pvt.) Ltd., Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner (sic. respondents 2 and 3) filed a revision before the first respondent, whereupon, the first respondent passed the impugned order.
This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) and Mr. E. Madan Mohan, counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
As the question is one of law pertaining to jurisdiction of the first respondent, the matter itself is heard finally at the admission stage and is being disposed of by this order.
Section 91 of the Act reads as under.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, an application for revision shall lie to the High Court from any final order passed on appeal by the Collector or Board of Revenue on the following grounds:
(a) that the original or appellate authority exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) that the original or appellate authority failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) in following the procedure or passing the order, the original or appellate authority acted illegally or with material irregularity.
Against an order passed by the Joint Collector any appeal or revision lies only to the High Court and no such revision or appeal lies to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. Therefore, first respondent cannot entertain any revision. The remedy available to respondents 2 and 3 is to file a revision before the High Court. Therefore, a writ of Prohibition shall issue restraining the first respondent from proceeding with the matter and the order passed by him without jurisdiction is void and is accordingly set aside.
The writ petition shall stand allowed accordingly.