ORDER
1. In this Revision Petition a short question arises as to the interpretation of Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh ( Andhra Area ) Inams ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari ) Act of 1956 ( Act 37 of 1956 ) ( hereinafter called the Act ) and Rule 15 of the rules framed thereunder.
2. The question arises on the following facts : The Tahsildar, Tenali, issued a notice under Rule 3 of the rules stating that he proposed suo moto to hold an enquiry under Section 3 of the Act for the purpose of determining whether the land in T. D. No. 904 in Devarapalli Agraharam, Tenali Taluk, Guntur District, is an inam land, and if so, whether such inam land is in a ryotwari or Zamindari or inam village, and whether such inam land is held by any institution, and called upon all persons and institutions claiming interest in the said lands to file before him statements of particulars within 15 days from the date of the publication of the notice. Pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, the petition herein Sree Sree Ramachandra Swami Varu of Uttaradi Mutt, Samasthanam, represented by the Head and Trustee Sree Satya Pramoda Thirtha Swamulu Varu, represented by his power-of-attorney Agent Sri Markapuram Sreenivasa Charyulu, filed a statement stating that the said lands are inam lands situated in an inam village and held by the institution viz., Uttaradi Mutt. He filed another application under Section 7 of the Act for the grant of a ryotwari patta in favour of the said Mutt. About 105 persons who were shown as petitioners Nos. 2 to 106 before the Tahsildar, filed written statements claiming that the lands covered by the notices are inam lands situated in an inam village, but not held by any institution and that they are held by an individual viz., the Deity Sree Ramachandra Swami Varu of Uttaradi Mutt. The Tahsildar, Tenali, in R. C. No. 1692/1969 dated 25-8-1970 passed an order holding that the lands in question are inam lands, that they are situated in an inam village viz., Devarpally Agraharam, and that the lands are not held by any Institution.
3. The Uttaradi Mutt represented by its power-of-attorney Agent preferred an appeal against the said order of the Tahsildar, before the Revenue Divisional Officer Tenali. Along with the said appeal, the Mutt filed an application praying that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 alone should be allowed to represent the petitioners 2 to 106 shown as petitioners in the enquiry in R. C. No. 1692/69 before the Tahsildar, Tenali on the ground that the petitioners 2 to 106 are numerically large and that their contentions is the same.
4. That application was opposed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 contending that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to appeals under the Act and that Rule 15 of the Rules also could not be invoked for the purpose of suing the respondents in representative capacity. It was further contended that before the Tahsildar, all the persons, who were shown as petitioners Nos. 2 to 106, were not sued in representative capacity and that therefore they could not, for the first time, be sued in a representative capacity in the appeal and that as all the persons shown as petitioners are in possession of different parcels of land, different questions will arise with respect to each individual and they could not, therefore, be sued in a representative capacity.
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 14-6-1971, held that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code did not apply to the appeals under the Inams Abolition Act as Section 13 of the Act specified the matters in respect of which the Revenue Courts could exercise powers of the Civil Courts and that Sec. 13 does not empower the Revenue Courts to exercise powers under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. In that view the Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the petition. In the revision filed inder Article 227 of the Constitution, it is contended by Sri Narasinga Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Revenue Divisional Officer erred in holding that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to appeals filed under the Inams Abolition Act. Section 3 provides as follows :–
“3 (1) As soon as may be, after the commencement of this Act, the Tahsildar may suo moto and shall on application enquire and determine __
(i) Whether a particular land in his jurisdiction is an inam land ;
(ii) Whether such inam land is held by any institution ;
(2) Before holding such an enquiry, the Tahsildar shall cause to be published in the village or town where the inam lands are situate a notice in the prescribed manner requiring every person or institution claiming an interest in any such inam land, to file before him, a statement of particulars in respect of items (i), (ii) and (iii) in sub-sec. (1) within the prescribed time.
(3) The Tahsildar shall thereafter give the persons or institution concerned a reasonable opportunity of adducing any evidence in support of their cases, and may also examine any relevant document in the possession of the Government and give his decision in writing in regard to items (i), (ii) and (iii) in sub-sec. (1) and communicate the decision to the persons or institutions by registered post.
(4) Any person or institution aggrieved by a decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3), may appeal to the Revenue Court within sixty days from the date of the communication of the decision by registered post and the Revenue Court may after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders on the appeal as it thinks fit.
(5) The decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (4), and in case no appeal is filed, the decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3) shall be final.
(6) Every decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (4) and if no appeal is filed within the period specified in sub-section (4) every decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3) shall, as soon as possible, be published in the District Gazette, and in such other manner as may be prescribed.
(7) Every decision of the Revenue Court and subject to such decision, every decision of the Tahsildar under this section, shall be binding on all the persons and institutions claiming an interest in any such inam land, notwithstanding that such persons or institutions have not filed any application or statement, or adduced any evidence or participated in the proceedings before the Tahsildar or the Revenue Court, as the case may be. ”
6. Section 4 provides for conversion of the inam land into ryotwari land and also declares or institutions entitled to the ryotwari patta. Section 7 provides for the grant of ryotwari pattas.
7. In the present proceedings I am concerned only with the enquiry under Section 7. Under Section 3, before holding the enquiry, the Tahsildar has to publish in the village or town where the inam lands are situate, a notice in the prescribed manner requiring every person or institution claiming an interest in any such inam land to file before him statement of particulars as mentioned therein. The Tahsildar has then to give a reasonable opportunity to the persons or institutions concerned for adducing evidence in support of their claims and then give his decision in writing, with regard to each of the items (i), (ii) and (iii) mentioned in sub-section (1) and communicate the decision to the persons or institutions concerned. Against the said decision, an appeal lies to the Revenue Court as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 3. These provisions clearly show that every person who claims to be interested in any such inam land is entitled to file a statement before the Tahsildar and also adduce evidence in support of his claim and if aggrieved can also prefer an appeal. Therefore sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Sec. 3 clearly envisage that every person is entitled to individually file a statement and adduce evidence. This section, therefore, does not contemplate any person or persons being sued in a representative capacity.
8. Section 13, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner relies, reads as follows :–
“13. The Tahsildar, the Revenue Court and the Collector shall have the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( Central Act V of 1908 ) in respect of the following matters namely ;
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath ;
(b) requiring the discovery or production of documents ;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits; and
(d) issuing commissions for inspection of lands and for examination of witnesses or documents. ”
9. Section 13 only attracts the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the matters enumerated therein. The provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code which empower a person to sue or defend on behalf of all persons having the same interest are not covered by this Section. Therefore, neither Section 3 nor Section 13 enables persons having the same or similar interest to sue in a representative capacity.
“15 (1) All proceedings before the Tahsildar, the Revenue Court, or the Collector, under the Act, shall be summary and shall be governed as far as may be, by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.
(2) In any proceedings before the Tahsildar, the Revenue Court, or the Collector, the Tahsildar, Revenue Court or Collector, as the case may be, may permit any party to be represented by his agent or legal practitioner.
Provided that the Tahsildar, Revenue Court, or Collector at any stage of the proceedings, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel such permission.”
10. But even this rule does not attract all provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings before the Tahsildar, the Revenue Court and the Collector. The Act itself expressly made only some of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code applicable to the enquiries before the Tahsildar, Revenue Court and the Collector. Therefore there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel that Rule 15 attracts all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to the enquiries before the Tahsildar, Revenue Court and the Collector. Therefore, on a reading of the provisions of Section 3 and 13 and Rule 15 I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code are applicable to enquiries before the Tahsildar and the Revenue Court under Sec. 3 of the Act.
11. Further in the instant case all the persons claiming an interest had eonomine come on record before the Tahsildar and they claimed to be in possession of different parcels of land. Therefore they are not sued in a representative capacity before the Tahsildar. When they were already on record before the Tahsildar in their individual capacity, I do not think that at the appellate stage they can be allowed to be sued in a representative capacity. Further it does not appear whether their claims are the same or similar in respect of the land in the possession of each of the said persons. On this ground also, the petitioner cannot be allowed to sue all the persons shown as petitioners 2 to 106 before the Tahsildar in a representative capacity. In this view, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. It is therefore dismissed. No costs.
12. Revision dismissed.