GOVT. OF ANDHRAPRADESH AND ORS versus GUDEPU SAILOO AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 791 · Decided: 28-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
GOVT. OF ANDHRAPRADESH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
GUDEPU SAILOO AND ORS. 
APRIL 28, 2000 
[S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
:i 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Petition filed by the 
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 
D 
of being challenged at the interlocutory stage-Andhra Pradesh (Telangana 
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 
judgment and there were two distinct questions involved in the appeal, both the 
E 
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 
''<'. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
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-
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 
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-
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 
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, 
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 
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 
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-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.