Court rules no separate preliminary notice is needed before initiating revision proceedings under Section 9 of the ROR Act; overrules contrary view in Healthy Agro Enterprises
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the competent authority is not required to issue a separate prior notice before initiating suo motu revisional proceedings. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar dismissed a writ appeal filed by Durgam Paddaiah and others, while holding that the only notice required is the one contemplated under the proviso to Section 9 read with Rule 23(2) of the 1989 Rules.
The appellants had challenged a notice issued by the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act, arguing that the authority first had to issue a preliminary notice proposing initiation of suo motu proceedings. They relied on the earlier decision in Healthy Agro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and on the Supreme Court ruling in M/s. D.N. Roy and S.K. Bannerjee v. State of Bihar.
Rejecting the challenge, the Bench held that Section 9 itself expressly empowers the Collector to act either suo motu or on application, and the proviso only requires that no adverse order be passed unless the affected person is given an opportunity to make a representation. Rule 23(2) further states that when a suo motu revision is initiated, the grounds must be communicated to the person likely to be adversely affected. According to the Court, this statutory scheme satisfies the requirements of natural justice.
The Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in D.N. Roy, noting that the Bihar case involved a legal framework that did not specifically provide for suo motu action or notice of grounds. In contrast, the Andhra Pradesh Act and Rules already incorporate both the power and the procedure. Therefore, no additional judicially created requirement of a “notice before notice” can be imposed.
The Bench also held that the view taken in Healthy Agro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was incorrect to the extent it suggested that two separate notices were necessary—one before initiating suo motu proceedings and another under Section 9 read with Rule 23(2). That decision was overruled to that extent.
Finding no jurisdictional error in the notice issued by the Joint Collector, the Court dismissed the appeal, but granted liberty to the appellants to file objections and explanations before the revisional authority. The Court directed the authority to consider the matter in accordance with law and expeditiously.
Bottom Line :
Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 9 - Suo motu revisional power - No prior separate notice is required before initiation of suo motu proceedings - Only notice contemplated under proviso to Section 9 read with Rule 23(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, communicating grounds to affected persons and affording opportunity of representation, is sufficient - Contrary view in Healthy Agro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. overruled to that extent.
Statutory provision(s): Section 9, Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, Rule 23(2), Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989
Durgam Paddaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987214
