Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another[1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Writ Petition No.19364 of 2020 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Appeal No.4 of 2020 passed on 10.06.2020 issued by the 2[nd] respondent and to quash the same and to pass any such other order….” 2. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0.675 cents in Sy.No.213/3A and 213/7A in Peravali Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, she got the said land through registered gift deed/settlement in the form of Pasupu Kumkuma on the occasion of her marriage by her mother Gangumalla Lakshmi Sarojini vide document bearing No.1101/1991 of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Tanuku. The 3[rd] respondent issued pattadar pass book and title deed duly recording the particulars in Record of Rights in recognition of petitioner’s legal right and title over the property. 3. Thereafter, the 3[rd] respondent issued a show cause notice in Form-II under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, as to why the resumption order cannot be passed. The petitioner submitted her objections to the said notice on 19.04.2020. In reply, the 3[rd] respondent stated that the land in question was assigned to one Buddana Venkata Swamy, by granting D-Form patta vide Dis.No.8476/1962, dated 13.02.1963. The extent of land stated in the notice is Ac.0.92 cents covered by the registered sale deed, dated 28.01.1987 executed in favour of the mother of the petitioner by name Gangula Lakshmi Sarojini by her vendor Buddana Satyavathamma. The Tahsildar registered the sale deed vide document bearing No.528, dated 28.01.1987 in the absence of any list of prohibited transfer of lands in his office. The Tahsildar passed the impugned order dated 04.03.2020. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 3[rd] respondent/Tahsildar, an appeal is preferred before the 2[nd] respondent in Appeal No.4 of 2020, dated 10.06.2020, the said appeal was dismissed confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar/3[rd] respondent. It is also asserted that no revision was filed against the impugned appellate order dated 10.06.2020 on the ground that the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act IX of 1977) as the land was not sold by the assignee, the original pattadar either to the petitioner or the petitioner’s vendor/owner. Therefore, the order passed by the authorities both in the resumption proceedings and the appellate order are illegal and arbitrary to the provisions of Act IX of 1977 and not considered the material document produced along with the petition and requested to issue a direction to call for record and to examine the same by exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue writ of Certiorari. 5. During the course of hearing, Sri P.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that though the revision is filed against such order, the petitioner did not prefer a revision, as the documents filed along with the objections cannot be considered by the revision authority/The District Collector in view of the limited jurisdiction conferred under 4(A)(ii) of the Act IX of 1977 and requested to set aside the order recognizing the petitioner’s title over the land in dispute. 6. Whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that a revision lies against the impugned order. When, a statutory remedy is available, the petitioner cannot approach this Court to seek Writ of Certiorari, which is purely discretionary in nature and requested to dismiss the petition, while permitting the petitioner to prefer a revision before appropriate authority under Section 4(A)(ii) of Act IX of 1977. 6. Whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that a revision lies against the impugned order. When, a statutory remedy is available, the petitioner cannot approach this Court to seek Writ of Certiorari, which is purely discretionary in nature and requested to dismiss the petition, while permitting the petitioner to prefer a revision before appropriate authority under Section 4(A)(ii) of Act IX of 1977. 7. As seen from the orders under challenge, it is specifically mentioned at the end of the impugned order that an appeal lies against the order, but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, only revision lies to the District Collector. When the revision lies against the Appeal No.4 of 2020, the petitioner can approach the revision authority by filling appropriate application in terms of Section 4(A)(ii) of Act IX of 1977. 8. The petitioner straight away approached this Court without availing statutory remedy available under the Act IX of 1977 and insisting this Court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, this Court cannot exercise such jurisdiction, when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Genpact India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another[1]. 9. By applying the principle laid down in the judgment referred above, the petitioner is permitted to approach the competent authority by filing appropriate revision. 10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated: 21.10.2020 IS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Writ Petition No.19364 of 2020 Dated: 21.10.2020 IS