IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.30989 of 2010
Date: 10.12.2010
Between:
Waheedunnisa Begum
..... Petitioner
AND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Principal Secretary and others
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mohammed Rahail Ahmed
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 18:--
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash the order dated 31.07.2010 of respondent No.2, whereby he has allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos.4 to 12 against the order of respondent No.3 mutating the names of respondent No.15 and another in the record of rights.
At the hearing, Sri Mohammed Rahail Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing that his client has a remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), has however stated that the power of the revisional authority is limited and therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
I have considered this submission and I am unable to accept the same. Under Section 9 of the Act, the revisional authority is empowered to examine the record of rights as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made. Construing this provision, this Court in Pentareddy Pratap Reddy @ Vijaya Pratap Reddy vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal[1] observed as under:
“The language in Section 9 of the Act reproduced above clearly indicates that the revisional authority is vested with the power to examine the regularity, correctness or legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made by the recording authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B of the Act. He is also empowered to modify, annul or reverse the orders passed by the subordinate authorities or remand the matter for reconsideration. Therefore, the amplitude of the power of the revisional authority is very wide and there is no basis for the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said remedy is not efficacious one. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition when the petitioners have effective alternative remedy.“
In the light of the above decision, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision is not an effective alternative remedy cannot be accepted. Ordinarily, this Court seldom entertains writ petitions filed bypassing the effective alternative remedy. (See Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks[2] and Harbans Lal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited[3]). The petitioner is not able to establish that this case can be treated as an exception to this normal rule.
Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39423 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
10th December, 2010
GHN
No comments:
Post a Comment