THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT APPEAL Nos.400 and 407 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)
Since the facts of the case and the issue involved in both these
writ appeals are similar and since both these writ appeals arise out of
a common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, both
these writ appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Both these appeals are filed challenging the common order,
dated 10.02.2020, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in
W.P.Nos.39279 of 2017 and 6761 of 2018.
3. We have heard the submissions of Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned
counsel for the appellant in both the appeals; Sri B.Venkateshwara
Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.400 of 2020; Sri
R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.8 in W.A.No.400 of 2020 and respondent No.9 in W.A.No.407 of 2020; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for official respondent Nos.2 to 7 in W.A.No.400 of 2020 and official respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.A.No.407 of 2020; Sri B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.407 of 2020; and Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.8 in W.A.No.407 of 2020. We have perused the record.
4. The sole appellant in both these appeals (A.Laxman Rao) is the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.39729 of 2017 and respondent No.7 in W.P.No.6761 of 2018. Respondent No.1 in W.A.No.400 of 2020 is the sole petitioner in W.P.No.6761 of 2018. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 2 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 in W.A.No.407 of 2020 are the petitioners in W.P.No.39279 of 2017. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.39279 of 2017 are respondent Nos. 22 and 17 respectively in W.P.No.6761 of 2018. Sole petitioner in W.P.No.6761 of 2018 is respondent No.5 in W.P.No.39279 of 2017. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.39279 of 2017 are respondent Nos.7 & 8 in W.P.No.6761 of 2018. The issue in both the writ petitions in which the impugned common order was passed is conducting survey and proposing to undertake demarcation of land in Survey Nos.160 and 161 of Hydernagar Village of Kukatpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. For clarity, the parties would be hereinafter referred to as per their array in W.P.No.39279 of 2017. Brief facts of W.P.No.39279 of 2017
5. In this writ petition, there are three petitioners. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 claim to be absolute owners and possessors of house bearing No.16-2-100/35, plot Nos.35 and 878 situated at The Gopal Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Hydernagar Village, GHMC Kukatpally Circle, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deeds. Petitioner No.3 is the developer of Plot Nos.192 and 193 situated in the aforesaid Society. These plots form part of layout made on land in Sy.Nos.148 to 155 of Hydernagar Village. Petitioners trace history of flow of title. According to the petitioners, respondent No.6 (appellant in both the writ appeals) made an application, dated 24.05.2014, to the Commissioner, Survey Settlements & Land Records, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') for comprehensive survey of lands in Survey Nos.148, 149, 159, 160, 161 and 162 and to re-fix the correct boundaries of his land in Survey No.160 of ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 3 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 Hydernagar Village, stating that there is lot of difference in boundaries shown in Survey Nos.160 and 161. On the said application, the Commissioner endorsed directing the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records (hereinafter referred to as 'RDD') to conduct survey of Survey Nos.160 & 161 of Hydernagar Village. Based on the said endorsement, survey was conducted without serving notice to the petitioners and the RDD submitted report in Rc.No.A5/165/2014, dated 24.10.2014, to the Commissioner. While so, against the said report of the RDD, the 5th respondent (sole petitioner in W.P.No.6761 of 2018), i.e., The IDPL Employees Co-operative House Building Society preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, vide Case No.A4/901/2015. The Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, vide order, dated 25.10.2017, dismissed the appeal with a direction to the RDD to show the boundaries of Survey Nos.160 and 161 of Hydernagar Village, in accordance with his report, dated 24.10.2014, and in pursuance to the notice No.A5/337/2015 issued by the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, dated 13.03.2015. Pursuant to the same, the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records (hereafter referred to as 'Assistant Director'), issued notice, dated 15.11.2017, to respondent Nos.6 and 7 and others, informing the date of demarcation/spot inspection as 22.11.2017 at 11:00 AM. In this writ petition, the petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare the order of the Joint Collector, dated 25.10.2017, and the report of the RDD, dated 24.10.2014, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 300A of the Constitution of India and a consequential direction to set aside the notice of the Assistant Director, dated 15.11.2017, for demarcation/spot inspection.
ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 4 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 Brief facts in W.P.No.6761 of 2018:
6. Sole petitioner in this writ petition is IDPL Employees Co- operative Housing Society Limited. Petitioner Society claims to be the owner of Acs.65.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.163 of Hydernagar Village, having acquired title to the property by virtue of final decree proceedings in C.S.No.14 of 1958. Petitioner Society further claims that possession of the property was delivered to it by the District Court, Ranga Reddy District, in E.P.Nos.19 of 1987 and 10 of 1990. According to the petitioner Society, it obtained orders to convert land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose. As the matter stood thus, the petitioner Society was served with Survey Notice bearing No.A5/165/2014, dated 20.06.2014, proposing to conduct survey of land in Sy.Nos.160 and 161 on an application, dated 24.05.2014, made by A.Laxman Rao (appellant in both the writ appeals). Initially, survey was to be conducted on 27.06.2014, but later it was postponed to 02.07.2014. Petitioner Society claims to have opposed the survey by filing objections on 25.06.2014. Since no orders were passed or communicated to the Petitioner Society on the objections filed by it, the petitioner Society filed an application under Right to Information Act and came to know that the RDD submitted his report, dated 24.10.2014, to the Commissioner. While so, on a common application, dated 28.02.2015, made by 7th and 8th respondents (A.Laxman Rao & A.Srinivasa Rao) requesting to expedite fixation of boundaries by ignoring the objections filed by the petitioner Society, the Assistant Director issued notice on 13.02.2015/3.3.2015 proposing to demarcate land in Survey Nos.160 and 161. Aggrieved by the same, on 11.03.2015, the petitioner ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 5 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 Society filed an appeal before the Commissioner in File No.F1/344/2015, but the Commissioner, by his order, dated 18.03.2015, while observing that the petitioner Society should avail remedy of appeal before Joint Collector, stayed further action on the notice, dated 13.02.2015/03.03.2015, without prejudice to the rights of either parties. Accordingly, the petitioner Society preferred appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.A4/901/2015. Simultaneously, the petitioner Society also preferred appeal against report of RDD, dated 24.10.2014, before the Commissioner. In view of filing of appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, against the notice dated 13.02.2015/ 03.03.2015, the Commissioner, by order, dated 06.10.2015, closed the appeal filed before him, by continuing earlier interim order till the disposal of appeal by Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, passed final orders in Case No.A4/901/2015 on 25.10.2017, overruling the objections raised by the petitioner Society and further directed the RDD to show boundaries of Survey Nos.160 and 161 of Hydernagar Village in accordance with his report, dated 24.10.2014 and in pursuance of notice, dated 13.03.2015. Pursuant to the same, the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, issued notice, dated 15.11.2017, intimating the date of demarcation/spot inspection as 22.11.2017 at 11:00 AM. In this writ petition, the petitioner Society sought a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records, i.e., the order of the Joint Collector, dated 25.10.2017, and the report of the RDD, dated 24.10.2014, and quash the same and a consequential direction to declare the notice of the Assistant Director, dated 15.11.2017, for demarcation/spot inspection, as illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 6 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 vitiated by the principles of natural justice.
7. A learned single Judge of this Court, vide common order, dated 10.02.2020, allowed both the writ petitions, holding as follows:
"The Commissioner and the RDD failed to notice that request to conduct survey was not bona fide. There was clear suppression of earlier survey and decision of the Commissioner. Thus, equities are against respondents 6 and 7. The Commissioner could not have entertained such application, even assuming that such course is permissible.
It is also seen from material on record that respondents 6 & 7 filed O.S.Nos.493 and 494 of 2014 pending in the Court of Principal District Judge. Nothing prevented them from moving appropriate application to conduct survey. When there is inter- se dispute pending adjudication by competent Court, administrative authorities should hold their hands and allow persons to get their disputes resolved by the competent Court.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions are allowed. However, it is made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits and the aspects discussed herein above are only to test the validity of the order of Commissioner for Survey Settlements and Land Records directing RDD to conduct survey, RDD conducting survey and submitting his report, and consequential orders of the Commissioner and the Joint Collector."
8. Aggrieved by the aforementioned common order, dated 10.02.2020, respondent No.6 in W.P.No.39279 of 2017 who is also respondent No.7 in W.P.No.6861 of 2018, (A.Laxman Rao) filed both these appeals.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant in both these appeals would contend that the impugned common order, dated 10.02.2020, is contrary to facts, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The learned single Judge failed to see that there is no cause of action for filing the writ petitions inasmuch as conducting of survey would not defeat the rights of any person nor would cause any legal injury to anybody. Survey of private lands by the authorities of the Department of Survey, Settlement & Land Records, is permissible.
ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 7 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 The learned single Judge failed to see that the circular, dated 25.07.2001, of the Special Commissioner and Director, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, is only an administrative instruction and it would not act as a bar for conducting survey by an officer of the rank of Regional Deputy Director and hence, the survey conducted in the instant case by the Regional Deputy Director is not liable to be set aside relying on the said circular. The petitioners in both the writ petitions in which the impugned common order was passed have failed to demonstrate the prejudice that would be caused to them if survey is conducted. Further, non-observance of the circular, dated 25.07.2001, would not vitiate the survey, nor will affect any civil rights of the respondents herein/writ petitioners. The learned single Judge erred in holding that no reasons are shown in directing the RDD to conduct survey and the reasons for deviating from the normal procedure are also not recorded. The learned single Judge unnecessarily attached over-importance to the circular, dated 25.07.2001. The observation of the learned single Judge that there is arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the Commissioner in directing the RDD to conduct the survey is erroneous. In the absence of any prejudice that would be caused to the writ petitioners in conducting the survey, the extraordinary power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India is unwarranted. The aspects highlighted by the learned Single Judge are trivial in nature and non-observance of the same cannot form basis for annulling the survey. The learned single Judge failed to see that the survey was conducted over the lands in Survey Nos.160 and 161 of Hydernagar Village and admittedly, the land of the respondent No.1 in W.A.No.400 of 2020 (sole petitioner in W.P.No.6761 of 2018), i.e. ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 8 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 IDPL Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited is in Survey No.163 and hence, there is no cause of action at all for the said Society to object the survey or to challenge the same. The observation of the learned single Judge that conducting of survey by an officer of Department of Survey, Settlement & Land Records would upset the rights of the aforementioned Society has no basis. The view of the learned single Judge that the survey conducted by the RDD is ex-facie illegal and submission of report by him to the Commissioner is also illegal, is also without any basis. The observation of the learned single Judge that the report of the RDD will have serious ramifications is only imaginary. The view of the learned single Judge that the appellant in both these appeals could have moved the civil Court seeking a direction to survey is also unwarranted, since there is no bar of having the land surveyed by the officials of Department of Survey, Settlement & Land Records. No legal grounds were made out for objecting the survey conducted by the RDD. Conducting survey and fixing boundary stones with the assistance of GPS by the officials of Survey Department can never be objected, since the same would neither confer nor diminish any right in favour of the parties to the dispute, unless the survey report is made part of some legal proceedings and established to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority. The impugned common order, dated 10.02.2020, passed by the learned single Judge is erroneous and ultimately prayed to set aside the same and allow the writ appeals as prayed for.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents in both these appeals would submit that on an earlier occasion, the ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 9 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 appellant in both these appeals and another person by name A.Srinivasa Rao have made an application to the RDD on 07.12.1999 to conduct survey of Survey Nos.160 and 161 of Hydernagar Village. The RDD conducted survey and passed orders, which were challenged before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, vide his order, dated 10.07.2001, found fault with RDD in directly entertaining the application and conducting survey by observing that such exercise ought to be undertaken by the Mandal Surveyor and accordingly ordered the parties to the appeal to file an application before the primary authority for survey and demarcation. Having kept quiet for 14 long years, the appellant in these writ appeals and A.Srinivasa Rao, directly made an application to the Commissioner on 24.05.2014, seeking an order to conduct survey of land in Survey Nos.148, 149, 159, 160, 161 and 162 of Hydernagar Village and to re-fix boundaries of his land in Sy.No.160 and surrounding survey numbers. The Commissioner endorsed it to RDD asking him to conduct survey. As per the directions of the Commissioner, RDD conducted survey and submitted his report dated 24.10.2014 to the Commissioner. The action of Commissioner in entertaining the application/s to conduct survey and directing RDD to conduct survey is contrary to his earlier decision, dated 10.07.2001, and directions issued from time to time. The entire survey exercise is ex-facie illegal, smacks of arbitrary exercise of power and void ab initio. Further, the claim of ownership by the appellant herein and another is based on unregistered sale deed dated 27.12.1970. As they never became owners of land, their very claim to conduct survey is not valid. Further, it is not a valid document since it does not disclose boundaries. Based on a false claim, survey could not have been ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 10 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 conducted. Further, there is inordinate delay and laches in requesting to conduct survey. Further, in the year 1989, survey was conducted and therefore, there cannot be a survey again. Further, the survey request was made only to gather evidence in the pending civil suits filed by the appellant herein and it was not a bona fide request. The application/s for conducting survey did not disclose about filing of civil suits and the earlier orders of the Commissioner. The Commissioner erred in not looking into his own order, dated 10.07.2001, and contrary to his own decision concerning the same survey numbers he could not have ordered fresh survey by reviewing his own order, that too, after a lapse of several years, which is not permissible. Further, there are serious boundary disputes and such disputes cannot be resolved by conducting survey. Further, the order of the Commissioner directing the RDD to conduct survey is against the circular orders in Circular Rc.No.N1/6543/99, dated 25.7.2001, of the Special Commissioner and Director, Survey, Settlements and Land Records. Paragraph 8 of the said circular mandates that no petition/appeal shall be entertained hereinafter directly, by-passing the hierarchy of survey officers and in case any petition is received through party or otherwise by any officer other than the Mandal Revenue Officer, it should be immediately returned to the party advising him to whom he has to approach. Under these circumstances, the learned single Judge is justified in allowing the writ petitions. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned common order. No grounds are made out by the appellant in both these appeals to set aside the impugned common order and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ appeals.
ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 11 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020
11. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination in both these writ appeals is as follows:
"Whether the common order, dated 10.02.2020, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.39279 of 2017 and W.P.No.6761 of 2018 is liable to be set aside?
POINT:
12. The settled legal position is that a request for conducting survey by private persons is permissible and the scheme/policy frame work with regard to the same in Circular Rc.No.N1/6543/99, dated 25.7.2001 of the Special Commissioner and Director, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, is in force. The learned single Judge of this Court, while dealing with the subject matter, was of the opinion that in view of earlier orders of the Commissioner, dated 10.7.2001, and the circular instructions on the issue, the action of RDD in conducting survey is ex facie illegal and that the RDD conducted survey as directed by the Commissioner and report was submitted to the Commissioner and the Commissioner passed orders on 29.11.2014 accepting the report of RDD. When there is no dispute with regard to the instructions issued by the Commissioner vide circular, dated 25.07.2001, and further instructions vide circular, dated 18.05.2010, and when the same are in force, private parties making request to conduct survey are required to follow those circular instructions scrupulously. Further, the Commissioner, having found in his field inspection that the instructions issued vide circular instructions dated 25.7.2001 and 18.5.2010 were not being observed scrupulously, issued further instructions vide D.O.Rc.No.N1/4296/ 2012, dated 22.8.2012, which ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 12 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 disclose that every application for demarcation should be submitted to the concerned Tahsildar/E-seva/Mee-seva centre; must be registered and registered application must be attended in seriatum and valid reasons are to be assigned for any deviation to the seriatum. Certain copies are also required to be uploaded along with such application. Further, Paragraph 8 of the circular, dated 25.07.2001, mandates that no petition/appeal shall be entertained hereinafter directly, by-passing the hierarchy of survey officers and in case any petition is received through party or otherwise by any officer other than the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, it should be immediately returned to the party advising him to whom he has to approach. The circular orders indicated above provide for hierarchy of officers and who should deal with survey related issues and procedure to make applications/appeals. The circulars are self- contained code and are comprehensive. These circulars also bind the Commissioner. Similar view was taken by a Hon'ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the order, dated 14.06.2013, passed in W.A.No.110 of 2013. In his earlier orders dated 10.07.2001, the Commissioner, while making certain remarks against the RDD, held that the RDD is not the primary authority to entertain applications for survey and accordingly set aside the RDD reports and decisions and remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar. The appellant herein did not challenge the said order, instead, made another application directly to the Commissioner for comprehensive survey and surprisingly, the Commissioner, without looking into his own order, dated 10.07.2001, passed on an earlier occasion in respect of same subject matter, entertained the application and forwarded the same to the RDD ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 13 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 directing him to conduct survey. No reasons were assigned by the Commissioner in doing so. Further, no extraordinary circumstances were pointed out by the appellant in deviating the scheme laid down for conducting survey in circulars indicated above. There is no circular order enabling the RDD to conduct survey directly on an application made by a party. As per the circulars indicated above, a policy has been enunciated establishing hierarchy of officers assigning each of them specific duty in conduct of surveys and appeals etc. These aspects were examined in detail by the learned single Judge of this Court in the impugned common order, who opined that the action of the Commissioner is contrary to the rudimentary principles of Administrative Law, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and authority. The learned single Judge further observed that strangely, the RDD did not protest such direction to conduct survey. It has also been observed by the learned single Judge that though the Commissioner directed to conduct survey in respect of land in Survey Nos.160 and 161, the RDD enlarged the scope of survey to other survey numbers also. As per the material placed on record, earlier reports of the RDD were set aside and the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned was asked to conduct survey, vide orders of the Commissioner, dated 10.07.2001. Those orders attained finality and they are still in force. So, the appellant is not entitled to upset the findings recorded by the Commissioner in his order, dated 10.07.2001, after a lapse of 14 long years. In view of the same, we concur with the view of the learned single Judge that in view of earlier orders of the Commissioner, dated 10.7.2001, and the circular instructions on the issue, the action of RDD in conducting survey is ex facie illegal. A strange procedure is invented to conduct ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 14 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 survey on the instructions of the Commissioner and then a report was forwarded to the Commissioner, who passed orders on 29.11.2014 accepting the report of RDD. The decision of Joint Collector is consequential to the order of the Commissioner dated 29.11.2014. The learned single Judge rightly observed that blatant illegality is noticed in the decision of the Commissioner, dated 29.11.2014. One of the contentions putforth on behalf of the appellants is that the respondents/writ petitioners have no substantial interest in the subject matter of land in Survey Nos.160 and 161 and hence, there is no cause of action for them to file the writ petitions. Refuting the said contention, the respondents/writ petitioners contended that their lands are adjoining to the lands in survey Nos.160 and 161 of Hydernagar Village and they were also served with Survey notices by the authorities concerned. The said submission of the respondents/ writ petitioners is supported by the copies of the documents placed on record. Further, admittedly, when a civil suit in O.S.Nos.493 and 494 of 2014 is pending between the parties on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, nothing prevented the appellant to file an application in the said civil suit for conduct of survey. Further, in the impugned common order, the learned single Judge has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the subject survey conducted and the right and entitlement of the parties over the land in Survey Nos.160 and 161 and other land covered by adjoining survey numbers. The learned single Judge mainly based his conclusions over the procedure/hierarchy to conduct survey envisaged in the circular orders issued from time to time by the Commissioner and also the order, dated 10.07.2001, passed by the Commissioner attaining ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 15 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 finality. Under the given circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the impugned common order. The learned single Judge is justified in passing the impugned common order and there is nothing to take a different view.
13. Similar issue came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.4811 of 2011 and batch. The petitioners therein contended that despite making representations after paying necessary charges for conducting survey and demarcation of their lands, survey was not being conducted. The respondents therein filed counter admitting the issuance of circulars in respect of survey of lands and contended that the persons seeking survey are required to produce certain documents in terms of circulars and only on compliance of said conditions, survey would be conducted and that since the petitioners therein have not complied with the conditions stipulated in the circulars, they are not entitled for any directions. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.618 of 2013, wherein, a direction was issued for compliance of conditions in the circulars and after production of relevant documents for survey as sought by the respondents in Memo dated 16-04-2012 and reminder Memo dated 10-06-2013, the respondents were directed to conduct survey and issue necessary report/proceedings to the appellant therein. In the circumstances of the case, it was held as follows:
"A perusal of the Circulars relied on by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue goes to show that subject to compliance of conditions in the Circulars, survey can be undertaken. The Division Bench in the said Judgment also considered the effect of Circulars and set aside the order of learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioners also not disputed that the petitioners have to comply the conditions in the Circulars relied on by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. In fact, ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 16 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 Division Bench issued directions basing on the Circulars. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue also states that while taking up the survey and demarcation of the lands, the Survey Department has to follow the provisions under Sections 89, 89- A and 92 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (For short " the Act").
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent-authorities to consider the applications of the petitioners for survey and demarcation of lands after receiving necessary charges, keeping in view the Circulars vide Rc.No.N1/1408/07, dated 13- 07-2007, Rc.No.N1/6543/99, dated 25-07-2001 and Circular vide Rc.No.N2/1741/2010, dated 18-05-2010 and also in terms of the judgment in W.A.No.618 of 2013 and also keeping in view the provisions of Sections 89, 89-A and 92 of the Act and take necessary action and communicate the decision to the parties. It is open for the petitioners to prefer appeal against the said order, if they are aggrieved in terms of circulars referred to above."
14. Before parting, it is apt to state that administrative decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, on the grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds administrative decisions cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the extraordinary power of judicial review. However, a decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard to the material on record. A decision may sometimes be set aside and quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 on the ground of illegality. This is when there is an apparent error of law on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision and/or in other words an apparent error, but for which the decision would have been otherwise. Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision-making process. Of course, a patent illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which ARR & Dr.SA, JJ 17 WA Nos.400 & 407 of 2020 goes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision-making process. In the instant case, as per the material placed on record, since there is patent illegality on the part of the Commissioner in directing the RDD to conduct survey and accepting the survey report submitted by the RDD vide order, dated 29.11.2014, it would vitiate the whole decision making process. Hence, the learned single Judge of this Court is justified allowing the writ petitions by exercising the extraordinary power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand disposed of in terms of this common judgment.
______________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J ______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 09th February, 2021 Note:
Mark L.R.Copy (B/O) Bvv.