Dismissed

K.Nageswar Rao v. The Dist.Collector

Telangana HC3 Feb 2011WP/16379/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated after 19 years to cancel an assignment under Board Standing Order No. 15(18). It held that an amendment in 1985 deleted the three-year limitation, allowing the Collector or State Government to act anytime, citing Munganda Venkataratnam.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Liberty granted to file an explanation and participate in the enquiry.

K.Nageswar Rao Vs The Dist.Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16379 of 2002

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

By means of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a mandamus to declare the proceedings in RC.E1/1030/2002, dated 08.07.2002 issued by the second respondent-Joint Collector, Nellore District calling upon the petitioner to appear for the enquiry into the illegal grant of D-Form patta and its cancellation, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶5

This Court, on 29.08.2002, while admitting the writ petition, stayed the impugned proceedings on the premise that the proceedings cannot be initiated after 19 years when para 18 of Board Standing Order No.15 (herein after referred to as ‘BSO 15 (18)’) permits such action within a period of three years.

¶6

According to the petitioner, he is in possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.5.00 situated in Sy.No.350/1 of Veernakollu, Kaligiri Mandal, Nellore District since 1974. He had reclaimed the land and brought it into cultivation by raising crops after obtaining loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Buchi. As he is a landless poor person, after conducting due enquiry, D-Form patta was granted in his favour in respect of the said land vide proceedings dated 27.10.1983. Therefore, the impugned proceedings initiated by the second respondent after 19 years cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be set aside.

¶7

The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision can be entertained by the Joint Collector only within three years, but if it is found that there is any irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the powers of the officer, who passed the assignment under mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation, the Collector

¶8

may set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision of an officer subordinate to him within a period of three years, but the enquiry cannot be proceeded pursuant to the impugned proceeding, which is initiated after 19 years.

¶9

This Court does not find any merit in the said contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since BSO 15(18) has been amended through G.O.Ms.No.192 Revenue (B) dated 2-81985, whereby the period of three years limitation stood deleted. After the said amendment BSO 15(18) reads as under:

¶10

“(18) Revision :-(1) The order of the authority making the assignment, if no appeal is presented, or of the appellate authority, if an appeal is disposed of, is final and no second appeal shall be admitted. But if, at any time after the passing of the original or appellate decision, the collector is satisfied that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the powers of the officer, who passed it or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation he may set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision passed by an officer subordinate to him. No order should be reversed or modified adversely to the respondent without giving the respondent a notice to show-cause against the action proposed to be taken adversely to him.

¶11

(2) The State Government, may, at any time, either suo moto or on application made to them, call for and examine the records relating to any decision or order passed or proceeding taken by any authority or office subordinate to them under the preceding sub-paragraph for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or property of such decision or order or as to the regularity of such proceeding and pass such order in reference thereto as they think fit. The Government may stay the execution of any such decision order or proceeding pending the exercise of their powers under this sub-paragraph in respect thereof.”

¶12

This Court in Munganda Venkataratnam vs Joint Collecto r^[1] , after noticing the amendment carried out to BSO 15(18), rejected the contention that the power of cancellation of assignment cannot be exercised on expiry of three years and held that it can be exercised either by the Collector or by the State Government at any time subject to the conditions mentioned in BSO 15(18).

¶13

In view of the amendment carried out to BSO 15(18) as stated supra, the challenge to the impugned proceedings fails.

¶14

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file his explanation to the impugned notice dated 08.07.2002, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, putforthing his defence. On receiving such explanation, the respondent shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and defend his case, and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

_________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J

¶16

Date: 03.02.2011 va

¶17

[1] 2006 (2) ALT 44

K.Nageswar Rao v. The Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Nageswar Rao v. The Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yadlapalli Lakshmi Durga, Vs M/s. Kamadhenu Financiers

Gokana Vara Prasada Rao, Vs Gokana Venkata Narasimha Rao

Smt. Sambarao Venkatamma, Vs Kalidasu Durgamma

V.Sai Sukumar, s/o.v.Narayana Vs The District Collector

Pasumarthi Veera Raghavulu, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

H.Zinka Obilesu, Vs The Joint Collector and Addl. Dist Magistrate