The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking to challenge an order remanding a land case for de novo enquiry. The Court held the impugned order had worked itself out, requiring the petitioner to have sought an appeal against the subsequent order instead.
Revision petition dismissed; no costs.
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.
HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
Civil Revision Petition No. 4804 of 2011
Date: 12.12.2011
Between:
Lingampally Pedda Narasimha … Petitioner And The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District and 4 others … Respondents
HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 4804 of 2011
O R D E R :
The petitioner herein is granted Occupancy Rights Certificate vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Special Grade Deputy Collector and RDO, R.R. District dated 04.06.1999 in respect of his half share out of Acs. 0.39 ½ guntas situated in Sy.Nos.3, 37, 39, 78 and 170 situated in Suraram village along with respondents 4 and 5 herein. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent herein filed an appeal before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector claiming that the land in question was purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 11.12.1968. After hearing both the parties, the 1st respondent by order dated 25.10.2005 set aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 04.06.1999 and remanded the matter back for de nova enquiry. Pursuant thereto, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed a fresh order dated 24.11.2007 holding that in view of the title acquired by the 3rd respondent herein under a registered sale deed dated 11.12.1968 the Occupancy Rights Certificate to the extent of Acs.0.8 cents of land situated in Sy.No.37 cannot be sustained. However, the Occupancy Right Certificate granted in respect of the remaining lands was not disturbed. Thereafter, the present revision petition came to be filed on 24.12.2007 under Section 28 of A.P. (Telanga Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 against the order of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector dated 21.10.2005.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
At the outset, it is to be noticed that under order dated 25.10.2005 the 1st respondent while setting aside the 2nd respondent’s order dated 04.06.1999 remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for de nova enquiry. Admittedly, after conducting such enquiry, the 2nd respondent has passed an order on 24.11.2007. Thus, the order of the 1st respondent has already worked itself out. The revision petitioner was very well aware of the 1st respondent’s order and in fact, participated in the de nova enquiry. Therefore, if aggrieved, the
petitioner ought to have challenged the order passed by the 2nd respondent by working out the remedy of appeal under Section 24 of the Act. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot challenge the 1st respondent’s order at this stage invoking the remedy of revision under Section 28 of the Act.
The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner being Chama Narasimha Reddy v. Joint Collector, R.R. Distric t[1] , Syed Hussain Sab v. Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar Distric t[2] a n d Rikhabsao Nathuso Jain vs. Corporation of the City of Nagpur and others[3] are clearly distinguishable on facts and have no bearing for deciding the question involved in this revision petition. Hence, this Revision Petition is misconceived and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 12.12.2011 KLP [1] 2007 (2) ALD 28 [2] 2010 (4) ALD 413 [3] (2009) 1 SCC 240
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can file a revision under Section 28 of the Act challenging an impugned order which has already worked itself out through a de novo enquiry.
Whether cited precedents are distinguishable on facts and have no bearing on the present revision petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chama Narasimha Reddy v. Joint Collector, R.R. DistrictDistinguished¶12
Chama Narasimha Reddy v. Joint Collector, R.R. Distric t, 2007 (2) ALD 28
Syed Hussain Sab v. Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar DistrictDistinguished¶12
Syed Hussain Sab v. Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar Distric t, 2010 (4) ALD 413
Rikhabsao Nathuso Jain vs. Corporation of the City of Nagpur and othersDistinguished¶12
Rikhabsao Nathuso Jain vs. Corporation of the City of Nagpur and others, (2009) 1 SCC 240 · Who else cites this
Lingampally Pedda Narasimha
The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
