The High Court allowed a writ petition to quash a Collector's order accepting an appeal that the court found was not maintainable under the applicable revenue acts, relying on a prior Division Bench judgment.
Writ petition allowed; order dated 01-11-1997 passed by the first respondent quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA
Writ Petition No.7834 of 1998
Dated: 09-07-2007
Between:
Uppari Narsamma, w/o late Eranna, aged about 55 years, r/o Ieej village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
... Petitioner
and
1. The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District and 3 others.
... Respondents
ORDER:
Questioning the proceedings in Case No.B8/10/96, dated 01-111997 passed by first respondent – Joint Collector, the present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the same and also to declare the entertaining of appeal under Section 158 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli against the order passed in appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 i.e. Act 26 of 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) is
nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
2. It may not be necessary for this Court to peruse the averments made by petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, as the point involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.B.RATNAM v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.R. DISTRICT[1] , wherein it was held that against an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5 of the Act, appeal filed under the provisions of A.P.(T.A) Land Revenue Act, 1937-F, is not maintainable.
3. In the instant case, evidently, the order passed by the Assistant Collector is one under Section 5(5) of the Act and hence, the question of preferring an appeal against the said order, under Section 158 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1937 Fasli does not arise.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 01-111997 passed by first respondent is quashed. No costs.
_______________________________ JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Dt.09-07-2007 GLV
[1] 2003(1) ALD 826 (DB)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 158 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act can be entertained against an order passed under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Patta
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.B.RATNAM v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.R. DISTRICTReferred¶14
2003(1) ALD 826 (DB)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Uppari Narsamma, w/o late Eranna
Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar
3 others
Gopalakrishna Tamada
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
