Akku Laxman Rao vs Idpl Employees Cooperative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 350 Tel

       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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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.