Revenue - Lack of Jurisdiction of Tahsildar in civil matters of private lands = while there are civil suits pending between them and the third respondent regarding several private patta lands, the second respondent had issued a notice dated 25.03.2013, calling upon them to attend his office to resolve the disputes.= The Tahsildar, who is present in the Court today, fairly states that he lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice as the subject lands are private patta lands, and not lands belonging to the Government. He would express his unconditional apology for having issued the impugned notice and in having directed the petitioners to appear before him for resolution of disputes. He would state that it is only because the third respondent had submitted a representation that he has issued the impugned notice. Since the Tahsildar admits that he lacks jurisdiction, the impugned proceedings are set aside. Passing of such frivolous orders, in matters in which the revenue officials lack jurisdiction, has resulted not only in the petitioners having to incur needless expenditure but also of the precious Court’s time being wasted. I consider it appropriate, therefore, while recording the submission of the Tahsildar that he will no longer interfere with the matter, to dispose of the Writ Petition with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid by the second respondent, from his personal funds, to the East Godavari District Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today.
published in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/wp/wp_11782_2013.html
| WP 11782 / 2013 | WPSR 63201 / 2013 |
|
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.11782 of 2013
ORDER:
The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly the second respondent, in issuing the impugned notice dated 25.03.2013 in connection with the land dispute, when the matter is seized of by the Civil Court, as arbitrary and illegal.
The petitioners’ grievance is that, while there are civil suits pending between them and the third respondent regarding several private patta lands, the second respondent had issued a notice dated 25.03.2013, calling upon them to attend his office to resolve the disputes.
When the matter came up earlier on 10.06.2013, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra and Rayalaseema Areas) was in no position to state which provision of law empowered the Tahsildar to issue the impugned notice dated 25.03.2013. In order to ascertain the provision of law which empowered the Tahsildar to issue the impugned notice, the Tahsildar was directed to be present in the Court along with the entire records.
The Tahsildar, who is present in the Court today, fairly states that he lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice as the subject lands are private patta lands, and not lands belonging to the Government. He would express his unconditional apology for having issued the impugned notice and in having directed the petitioners to appear before him for resolution of disputes. He would state that it is only because the third respondent had submitted a representation that he has issued the impugned notice.
Since the Tahsildar admits that he lacks jurisdiction, the impugned proceedings are set aside. Passing of such frivolous orders, in matters in which the revenue officials lack jurisdiction, has resulted not only in the petitioners having to incur needless expenditure but also of the precious Court’s time being wasted.
I consider it appropriate, therefore, while recording the submission of the Tahsildar that he will no longer interfere with the matter, to dispose of the Writ Petition with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid by the second respondent, from his personal funds, to the East Godavari District Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
_______________________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
17.06.2013
vs
Comments
Post a Comment