Singamaneni Pullamma, ... vs The Joint Collector, Prakasam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4419 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                 WRIT PETITION No.10342 of 2004

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

"....to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records in the proceedings of the first respondents bearing D.Dis.No.5535/2003(D2) and further quash the Order therein made by the first respondent dated 31.05.2004 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2) This Court has heard Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned

counsel for the petitioner, considered the additional

documents filed including the judgments in the trial Court

etc., and has also heard the submissions of Sri M.R.S.

Srinivas learned counsel for the respondent.

3) The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner

are appealing. He has relied upon certain findings arrived at

by the Civil court in relation to these matters, but the fact

remains that if the relief claimed is granted this Court would

be a party to the wrongful invocation of jurisdiction and consequently would be granting of seal of approval to an order

that has been passed without jurisdiction.

4) This order which this Court holds was passed without

jurisdiction is dated 20.05.2001. By virtue of this order the

RDO Ongole set aside the entries made in the Pattadar

passbooks and record of rights books in favour of the present

respondent Smt. Singamaneni Sharadamma-4th respondent.

Against the same a revision petition was filed and in the said

revision petition the order dated 31.05.2004 came to be

passed. This is challenged by the writ petitioners. Long and

detailed submissions are made on the substratum of the

matter including the findings of the Civil Court on certain

matters touching the present aspect. Sri M.R.S.Srinivas

points out essentially relying upon the case law that is filed

mainly Sannepalli Nageswara Rao and Another v District

Collector, Khammam and Others1along with Singamaneni

Pullamma and Others v Joint Collector, Ongole,

Prakasam District and Others2 that there is procedure

stipulated under the Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 for

correcting the entries made. He points out that on the basis

2002 (4) ALD 497 (DB)

2004 (7) ALT 963 of a lawyers notice the matter was taken up as an appeal and

disposed of.

5) In the opinion of this Court the submissions of the

learned counsel for the respondent on the issue of exercise of

jurisdiction are correct. Even if wrong / erroneous entries are

actually made; the procedure stipulated must be valid to

correct the same. A lawyers notice cannot be treated as valid

appeal. The law on this aspect is very well settled. Once the

statue prescribes a particular method for doing an act, it

must be done in that manner or not at all. The case law on

this well settled principle is not being repeated herein.

6) This Court also notices that in the last paragraph of the

order it was very clearly mentioned that the respondent

should invoke the remedy that is available and viz., the suo

moto revision power along with copy of the grounds, so that

the matter could be examined on merits. It is also admitted

the grounds of appeal that the 1st respondent has a suo moto

power, but the complaint is that he should have himself

exercised the said power to give a quietus to the issue. The

long delay time which is also pointed out cannot be

overlooked.

7) Without expressing anything on the merits of the

matter, the writ petition is dismissed directing the writ

petitioners to file a revision along with a copy of this order

and a copy of the impugned order dated 31.05.2004 before

the Joint Collector, Prakasam, along with all their evidence.

After giving an opportunity to the respondents, the Joint

Collector shall decide the matter on merits without being

influenced by the earlier orders of the court or the earlier

orders passed by his contemporaries or his juniors.

8) With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

The entire exercise should be completed within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

9) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,

if any, shall also stand dismissed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:21.09.2023.

Ssv