Ranga Ramesh and others vs Madugula Pattabhi (died) as LRs. and others

This revision is filed u/s 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Act") against the orders dated 11-10-1999 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, rejecting an application purported to have been filed by the petitioners herein u/s 90-A(b) of the Act seeking transfer of a case from the primary authority and disposal by the Appellate Authority and readjudicating the orders already passed. The prayer in the petition filed before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy on 14-12-1994 reads as follows:

"This Hon''ble Court may be pleased to transfer the File No.L/2349 of 1988 from the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, East, to the office of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and readjudicate the File No.B4/13628 of 1984 and B4/5588 of 1984 in the interests of justice".

Section 90-A(b) of the Act reads as follows:

"(b) withdraw any proceeding or appeal from such officer and himself hear and decide the same or transfer it for disposal to some other officer in the district empowered in this behalf by the Government."

This provision is almost in pari materia with Section 24 of the CPC regarding transfer of suits. Under this provision, the Collector is vested with power to transfer any proceedings on his own motion or on an application filed by the parties. The power of transfer of proceedings is of original nature to be exercised in the exigencies.

The dispute in this case between the parties pertain to the claim of joint rights in respect of protected tenancy held in Sy.Nos.181 and 196 situated at Kuntloor village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. On the earlier occasion, the Joint Collector has disposed of the appeals filed u/s 90 of the Act by orders in File No.34/5588 of 1984 and 134/13628 of 1984 dated 10-2-1986 and subsequently, there was another order of the Joint Collector in File No.B4/1 1881 of 1987 dated 5-1-1988 remanding the matter for re-enquiry before the primary authority viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer. As against the aforesaid orders, revisions filed by the father of the petitioners before this Court were dismissed on merits as per the orders in CRP Nos.786, 787 and 1780 of 1986 dated 30-6-1988. Subsequently, the review applications were also disposed of by this Court on 7-4-1984 observing that it is open to the Revenue Divisional Officer to proceed with the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in pursuance of the orders of the Joint Collector dated 5-1-1988 without being influenced by any observations made in order dated 30-6-1988 in the revision. Thus now the matter is pending enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer in File No.L/2349 of 1988.

It is in respect of these proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioners seek transfer and for re-adjudication of the orders dated 10-2-1986 in File No.B4/5588 of 1984 and B4/13628 of 1984. In view of the fact that the orders dated 10-2-1986 stood merged with the orders in revision, the question of reopening as such does not arise and the very request is wholly misconceived. Further, the petitioners'' main prayer is to transfer the case which is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer in File No.L/ 2349 of 1988 and this petition was dismissed as per the orders under revision dated 11-10-1999.

The power to transfer a case, is contemplated u/s 90-A(b) of the Act. Any such exercise of power and the orders passed thereon pertain to original and independent jurisdiction and does not fall within the powers u/s 90 of the Act of an appellate jurisdiction. Original side jurisdiction is power conferred upon by the statute on an authority. Appellate jurisdiction is the power and authority conferred upon superior Court or Tribunal to rehear and determine causes which have been tried in the inferior Courts or Tribunals. These powers are independent of each other, though on the same authority. Admittedly, there is no appeal pending before the Appellate Authority and the orders passed were already confirmed in revision by this Court. Therefore, the orders under challenge are not in exercise of appellate powers. However, Section 91 of the Act provides for a revision to this Court from any "final order" passed on appeal by the Collector or Board of Revenue. Thus, for preferring a revision u/s 91 of the Act, the order should be a final order on an appeal. In the hierarchy of the Tribunals, three tier proceedings are contemplated. As against the orders of the primary authority, a regular appeal is provided u/s 90 and it is only against such orders in appeal, a revision is contemplated u/s 91. Whereas the order under this revision is only an order refusing to transfer a case and re-adjudication of two other cases u/s 90-A(b) in exercise of the original jurisdiction by the Collector but not as an Appellate Authority u/s 90 of the said Act. The very application is for transferring the case from the RDO, to the Appellate Authority and to readjudicate the matters which were already disposed of. In Yerraboth Sathaiah v. Edla Chaliah 1960 ALT 191 this Court while considering Section 91 of the Act held that an order of remand is on the face of it not a final order because it did not decide the rights of the parties and, therefore, revision petitions do not lie. Of course, the question therein was of a different nature i.e., whether an order of remand really adjudicates any rights of the parties so as to call it a final order and could be challenged in a revision u/s 91 of the Act. However, in this case, as stated supra, the order which is sought to be challenged is one passed u/s 90-A(b) which is of original jurisdiction but not an appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, I hold that no revision lies to this Court u/s 91 of the Act against the orders passed u/s 90-A(b) of the Act. Hence the revision fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.