Holding

The District Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to consider the explanation; only the Collector could do so, and the interlocutory challenge was not maintainable.

Summary

The respondents, who had been allotted government land on the condition that it could not be alienated without prior sanction, executed a power of attorney to sell the land. The District Revenue Officer, after receiving the respondents' explanation to a show‑cause notice, held that the assignment could not be cancelled. The Collector, however, suspended that order and the State Government later ratified the Collector’s action. The respondents challenged the Collector’s order and the ratification at the interlocutory stage through writ petitions. The Supreme Court held that a mandamus had directed the explanation to be considered by the Collector alone; therefore the District Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to act, and the interlocutory challenge was impermissible. The Court also noted that two writ appeals involving distinct questions should be heard together. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Collector to complete the pending proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether the District Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to consider the respondents' explanation despite a mandamus directing it to the Collector.
Whether the interlocutory stage of the proceedings could be challenged by the respondents.
Whether two writ appeals arising from the same judgment but involving distinct questions should be heard together.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Faslis. 166-B, s. 166-C, s. 172

Subjects

assigned landalienationmandamusjurisdictioninterlocutory challengeland revenueSection 166-BSection 172writ petitionSupreme Court

Judgment

~
GOVT. OF ANDHRAPRADESH AND ORS. A
v.
GUDEPU SAILOO AND ORS.

APRIL 28, 2000

[S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Petition filed by the
:i
respondents at interlocutory stage in land revenue proceedings-Direction to
petitioner to submit explanation to the Collector-Mandamus issued to the
collector to dispose of the explanation-Proceedings dropped by District c
Revenue Officer-Suspension of the order of district revenue officer-Writ
petition against-Held, not maintainable-17ze District Revenue Officer had
no jurisdiction to consider the matter in violation of the direction of the
court-The action initiated by the Collector and the ratification of his order
by the State Government, should have been allowed to take final shape instead
of being challenged at the interlocutory stage-Andhra Pradesh (Telangana D
Area) !And Revenue Act, 1317 F-Section 172, 166-B-The IAoni Rules,
1950---Rule 19-Andhra Pradesh Assigned !Ands (Prohibition of Transfer)
Act, 1977.

-)!.. Practice and Procedure-When two writ appeals filed against a common
E
judgment and there were two distinct questions involved in the appeal, both the
appeals should have been heard together.

The respondents were assigned the land in question, with the condi-
tion that the same would be used only for cultivation, and would not be
sold without prior sanction of the Government .and in case it is sold it F
would revert back to the Government.

The respondents, executed power of attorney in favour of a builder,
who applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer and obtained a Memo dated
23.9.92 from him that the sale of the land was not hit by the provisions of
G
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977.

';4.
In the meantime, when Police Department sent a requisition to the
Government for acquisition of the land in question for setting up of Police
Academy, the irregularities with regard to the assigned lands came to
notice. Action was initiated against the respondents and notice was issued H
791
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A to show cause as to why the assignments be not cancelled by the District ''<'.
Collectors.

The respondents filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the
show cause notice, which was disposed of by Single Judge treating· the
petition as premature and directed the respondents to submit their expla-
B nation to the District Collector, and further directed the District Collector
to consider the same.

Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the respondents submitted
their explanation, which was considered by the District Revenue Officer,
who held that there was no irregularity in assignment of lands to the
c respondents.

The District Collector, after examination of the order of.the District
Revenue Officer, vide its order dated 3.1.95 suspended the operation of the
order. The order of the District Collector was challenged by the respond-
D ents in writ petition before High Court.

In the meantime, the order of the District Collector dated 3.1.95 was
ratified by the Government vide order dated 24.1.96 and he was directed
to proceed with the enquiry and pass final order. The order dated 24.1.96
was also challenged by the respondents in writ petition before the High
E Court.

Single Judge allowed both the appeals and quashed the order of the
Government dated 24.1.96. State filed two appeals before Division Bench,
which took only one of the appeals and dismissed the same holding that the
3Ssignments of land made in favour of the respondents thirty years ago,
F could not be touched. .
0

Disposing of the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. Since a mandamus was issued to the Collector and
dispose of the explanation, which was required to be submitted by the
G respondents in reply to the show cause notice issued to them, the District
Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to consider the matter in violation of
the direction of the court. The explanation to the show cause notice had to
be submitted before the Collector and the Collector alone had to consider
and take a final decision in the matter. The action initiated by the Collector
H and the ratification of his order by the State Government are matters
GOVT. OF A.P. v. GUDEPU SAILOO (S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 793-
wbich should have been allowed to take &nal shape instead or being chal- A
lenged at the interlocutory stage by the respondents. [799-B-D]

1.2. Since it is not disputed that on account or the proceedings,
initiated by the respondents in the High Court, the Collector could not
complete the proceedings. There has been a non-compliance of the
mandamus issued by the High Court in respondents' own writ Petition. B
(798-H]

2. When two writ appeals were filed against the common judgment
and there were two distinct questions involved in the appeal, both the
appeals should have been heard together. C
(The Court directed the Collector to complete the proceedings, initi-
ated by him by bis order dated 3.1.1995.) [798-A; 799-E]

CIVIL APPELLKIE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3033 of 2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.98 of the Andhra Pradesh
D
High Court in W.A. No. 1487 of 1998.

P.P. Rao, K. Ram Kumar, B. Sridhar and Y. Subba Rao for the
Appellants.
E
M.N. Rao, Sudhir Chandra, P. Niroop and Pavan Kumar for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. SAGHm. AHMAD, J. Leave granted. On 21.10.1961, each of the F
respondents was allotted an area of 7 .06 acres of Government land situated
in village Manchirevula, District Rangareddy, situated at a distance of about
10 miles from the city of Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh. This assignment was
subject to two conditions, namely, (i} that the land would be used only for
cultivation and (ii) that it would not be alienated regarding which each one
of the assignees had given a written undertaking that they would not sell the G
land under any circumstance without the prior sanction of the Tehsildar and
in case the land was sold, it would revert back to the Government. (Learned
Senior Counsel, Mr. M.N. Rao and Mr. Sudhir Chandra object to this
undertaking being read by us on the ground that this was not filed before the
High Court). H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A In exercise of the power conferred by Section 172 of the Andhra
' I
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F., the Government had
made THE LAONI RULES, 1950 of which Rule 19 is quoted below:-

"19. The allottee of the land shall prepare the land for cultivation
within three years of being placed in possession and commence
B cultivation of the land thereafter. The pattadar may be rejected by the
order of the Collector for breach of any of the above conditions:

Provided that he has been served with a notice calling upon him
to comply with the conditions which he has violated and he fails to
c comply with it within three months of the date of service thereof. If
land has been transferred in contravention of the conditions, the
Collector may eject the transferee."

( Emphasis supplied )

D Permission to occupy the Government land is given on the prescribed
Form 'G'. One of the conditions contained in Form 'G' is that the "grantee
is not empowered to transfer the occupancy without the sanction previously
obtained from the Collector".

Under the Revised Assessment Policy, published in Part II of Andhra
E Pradesh Gazette dated 31.7.1958 (pages 771-773), which again was made in
exercise of the powers conferred by Section 172 of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F., it was provided in Part VI
thereof as under: -

"VI. Terms and conditions of assignment:-
F
(i) the assignment of lands shall be free of market value;

(ii) lands assigned shall be heritable but not alienable;

(iii) lands assigned shall be brought under cultivation within three
G years;

(iv) no land tax shall be collected for the first three years except for
the extent if any, which has already been brought under
cultivation. Water rate shall, however, be charged if the lands
H are irrigated with Government water; and
GOVT. OF A.P. v. GUDEPU SAILOO [S. SAGHJR AHMAD, J.] 795
(v) cultivation should be by the assignee or the members of his A
family or with hired labour under the supervision of himself or
a member of his family."

Thus, under the original Laoni Rules, 1950 as also under the Revised
Policy published in 1958, the alienation of the assigned land was prohibited.
While under the Laoni Rules, 1950, the alienation or transfer without the
B
previous sanction of the Collector was prohibited, under the Revised Policy,
it was clearly provided that though the assigned lands would be heritable, they
would not be transferred.

On 14th of August, 1991, the respondents to whom the land was C
assigned, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of a builder, M.A. Baksh,
giving him, inter alia, the following powers:-

"5. To negotiate, enter into agreements for and/or let lease or licence
the said property or any portion thereof to such person(s) or body and
for such consideration and upon such terms and conditions and for D
such purpose(s) as my said attorney may in his absolute discretion
deem fit.

6. To negotiate and agree to and/or to enter into agreement, to selV
develop/lease/mortgage the said property or to sell, convey, lease,
E
mortgage, assign or to otherwise transfer the said property or any
portion thereof to such person(s).or body and for such consideration
and upon such terms and conditions and for such purpose(s) as the
said attorney may in his absolute discretion deem fit and to collect
and receive the considerations thereof and to give a valig. receipts
therefor. F

7. To enter into agreement(s) to develop the said property by laying
roads, drainage, water connections, Electricity connectlon etc. and or
erecting individual/multistoreyed, residentiaVcommercial buildings
thereon with any person(s), firms, company/companies or society/
G
societies upon such terms and conditions as my said attorney may in
his absolute discretion deem fit."
.
Acting upon the Power of Attorney, M.A. Baksh applied to the Mand~
Revenue Officer and obtained a Memo dated 23.9.1992 from him that the sale
of land was not hit by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands H
..
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
-~
In the meantime, the Inspector-General of Police, Special Security
Force, Andhra Pradesh, sent a requisition on 12.11.1993 to the Government
for acquisition of the land situated in Manchirevula Village, Rejendranagar
Mandal for setting up of operational Headquarters with residential accommo-
B dation for the Police Academy. It was, at this stage, that the validity of the
assignments made in favour of the respondents in 1966 was examined and
on certain irregularities having been noticed in making those assignments, it
was decided to take action under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Land.Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and, therefore, a notice,
c requiring them to show cause why the assignment of land made in their
favour in 1961 be not cancelled, was issued to the respondents on 28.3.1994
by the District Revenue Officer. It was on receipt of the show cause notice
that the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 9106 of 1994 in the Andhra
Pradesh High Court challenging the validity of the notice. This Writ Petition
was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 3.5.1994 by the following
D order:-

"This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorary by calling for
the records relating to the impugned order dt. 28.3.1994 of the second
respondent and quash the same, by the impugned notice dated
E 28.3.1994 the Distt. Collector Ranga Reddy has issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner as to why the Patta granted earlier should not
be cancelled in view of certain alleged contraventions.

However, it is the case of the petitioner that he has not submitted
his explanation, instead furnished in this court. This writ petition is
F premature as it is filed against the show cause notice. However,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the
petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of one week from.
today and the same shall be considered by the second respondent.
Pending consideration of his explanation, the petitioner shall not be
G dispossessed.

Subject to above the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of
admission."

It may be stated that the second respondent in the Writ Petition to whom
H a direction was issued to consider the explanation which was to be submitted
GOVT. OF A.P. v. GUDEPU SAILOO [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 797
by the respondents was the District Collector, Rangareddy District. It was he A
who had issued the show cause notice dated 28.3.1994. Pursuant to the
judgment passed by the High Court, the respondents submitted their expla-
nations to the show cause notice which was considered by the District
Revenue Officer and he, by his order dated 15.9.1994, held that there was
no irregularity in the assignment of lands to the respondents. It was further
B
held by him that the respondents were in possession over the assigned lands
in pursuance of the Certificate granted to them in Form 'G' issued on
21.10.1961 and, therefore, the assignment was not affected by the subsequent
G.0.Ms. No.1122, dated 29.6.1961 by which the assignment oflands falling
within 10 miles of Hyderabad City was banned. This order was examined by
the Collector who was of the opinion that the District Revenue Officer had c
not examined certain vital aspects of the matter and consequently by his order
dated 3rd of January, 1995, he suspended the operation of the order dated
15.9.1994, passed by the District Revenue Officer. This order was challenged
by the respondents in Writ Petition No.484 of 1995.
D
In the meantime, the Collector wrote to the Government on 31st of July,
1995 to ratify the action indicated by him in his order dated 3rd of January,
1995. By order dated 24th of January, 1996, the Government ratified the
Collector's order dated 3rd of January, 1995 and directed him to proceed with
the enquiry and pass final order. This order of the Government was chal-
lenged by the respondents in Writ Petition No.7221196. By a common E
judgment dated 1st of September, 1997, a learned Single Judge of the High
Court allowed both the Writ Petitions and quashed the order of the Govern-
ment dated 24th of January, 1996. It may be stated that in the counter-
affidavit, filed on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh (appellants),
it was, inter alia, stated that the respondents had alienated the lands in favour F
of a third person. They had converted the agricultural lands into non-
agricultural lands and had also appointed a General Power of Attorney in
favour of a developer, for developing and sale of the plots, who converted
the lands into residential plots in the name and style of "Bakshi Estates".

The State of Andhra Pradesh, thereafter, filed two appeals before the G
x Division Bench but the Division Bench took up only one of the two appeals,
namely, Writ Appeal No.1487/98 and by judgment dated 14th of September,
1998, it dismissed the said appeal and maintained the order of the Single
Judge that the assignment of lands, made in favour of the respondents thirty
years ago, could not be touched. H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A We may observe that when two writ appeals were file<l against the
--<
common judgment and there were two distinct questions· involved in the
appeal, both the appeals should have been heard together. However, having
regard to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that since the High ....
Court in the first Writ Petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 9106/94, which was
filed by the respondents against the show cause notice qated 28.3.1994 for
B
cancellation of the assignment made in their favour, had itself directed the
respondents to submit their explanation to the show cause notice, and had
~
directed the Collector, Rangareddy District, who was arrayed as second
respondent in that Writ Petition, to considei; and dispose of the explanation,
there was no occasion to challenge the action initiated by the Collector at the
c interlocutory stage. The mandamus which was issued in Writ Petition No.9106/
94 consisted of a direction to the respondents to submit their explanation to
the show cause notice issued to them for cancellation of the assignment of
lands made in their favour and a direction to the Collector, Rangareddy
District, to consider and dispose of that explanation. The explanation submit-
ted by the respondents was, however; considered by the District Revenue
D
Officer who was of the view· that the assignment of lands, made in favour
of the respondents, could not be cancelled and consequently dropped the
proceedings. It was, at this stage, that the Collector intervened in the matter
vide order dated 3rd of January, 1995 and suspended the. operation of the
order passed by the District Revenue Officer and proceeded himself to ~ .~

E enquire into the matter by writing to the Government on 31st of July, 1995,
to ratify his action. As pointed out earlier, the Government, by its order dated
24th of January, 1996, ratified the action of the Collector.

It is not disputed that on account of the proceedings, initiated by the
respondents in the High Court, the Collector could not complete the proceed-
F ings. There has, thus, been a non-compliance of the mandamus issued by the ~
High Court in respondents' own Writ Petition No.9106/94.

The High Court in the impugned judgment has observed as under:-

"We do not find any infirmity in the reasoning of the learned
G Single Judge. In any event, the District Revenue Officer was vested
with the power under Section 166-B and in exercise of such a power )(
he passed an order recording therein that it will neither be fair nor
proper to reopen the issue of assignment which took place three
decades back by invoking the provisions of Section 166-B of the
H A.P.(f.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. We also record our
GOVT. OF A.P. v. GUDEPU SAILOO [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 799

'Y concurrence with the observations of the learned Single Judge and A
record that no exception can be taken to the order of the District
Revenue Officer and the order under appeal cannot be said to be

.. suffering from any infirmity. There is no merit in the appeal. As such,
this appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs."

We cannot subscribe to the view expressed by the High Court in so B
far as the order passed by the District Revenue Officer is concerned. Since
a mandamus was issued to the Collector, Rangareddy District, to hear and
dispose of the explanation, which was required to be submitted by the
respondents in reply to the show cause notice issued to them, the District
Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to consider the matter in violation of the c
direction of the High Court. As a matter of fact, the explanation to the show
cause notice had to be submitted before the Collector and'the Collector alone
had to consider and take a final decision in the matter. The action initiated

..
• by the Collector and the ratification of his order b)" the State Government
are matters which should have been allowed to take final shape instead of
being challenged at the interlocutory stage by the respondents. That being so, D
there is no necessity of going into the merits of the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties with regard to the provisions of Section 166-
B and 166-C of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act,
1317 Fasli.
J.. E
We, therefore, dispose of this appeal finally with the direction to the
Collector to complete the proceedings, ·initiated by him by his order dated
3rd of January, 1995 as ratified by the Government by its order dated ~th
of January, 1995, at an early date in accordance with law. There shall be no
order as to costs.
F
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.