ORDER
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. This batch of writ petitions may be disposed of by this common order as common question of law arises for consideration in these writ petitions.
2. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the lands in question. It is not necessary to refer the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions relating to the title of each of the petitioners, suffice it to notice that there is absolutely no dispute whatsoever that all the petitioners herein are in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question.
3. The petitioners challenge the impugned notice dated 9.3.2000 in Form No.2 purported to have been issued under the provisions of the A.P.Revenue Summonses Act, 1869 (for short ‘the Act’) and the rules framed there under. The Mandal Revenue Officer required the petitioners herein to submit the following documents in respect of the lands in question.
“1. Original Sale deed with link documents etc.,
2. MCH Permission letter.
3.Electricity Sanction letter.
4. Telephone No. if any Bill if any.
5.Water Connection sanctioned letter.
6.HUDA layout permission.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned notices issued by the respondent are without jurisdiction and without any authority of law.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Mandal Revenue Officer, it is stated that one Ghousuddin Khan and Ahmeduddin Khan were shareholders of Paiga Khursheed Jahi. The said properties of the Paiga Khursheed Jahi were subject matter of partition suit in C.S.No.14 of 1958. This Court, after granting preliminary decree, apportioned the shares of each of the shareholder. The decree holders represented to the District Collector of Hyderabad to locate the properties as per the orders of this Court in CS No.14 of 1958. The District Collector, vide proceedings dated 28.7.1998 issued necessary instructions to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad to locate the properties and hand over the vacant possession of the said properties to the decree holders.
6. In pursuance of the said instructions, the 2nd respondent visited the site and conducted summary enquiry, which revealed that some unauthorized persons are occupying the land covered by the present writ petitions. The 2nd respondent therefore issued revenue summons to the petitioners herein asking them to appear before him and produce the documentary evidence as to under what authority they are in possession of the land.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are not the parties to C.S.No.14 of 1958. They are neither the decree holders nor the judgment debtors. They claim to be the owners having purchased the properties in question from their predecessors in title. Assuming that the petitioners are in possession of the properties which are the subject matter of C.S.No.14 of 1958 on the file of this Court, the only option that would be available to the decree holders would be to seek appropriate directions in the final decree proceedings from this Court in the pending final decree proceedings. It is not known as to on whose behalf the respondent Mandal Revenue Officer is acting in the matter requiring the petitioners herein to produce the documents. Obviously, the Mandal Revenue Officer acted in purported exercise of power under the provisions of the said Act.
8. The Act empowers the Revenue Officers to summon persons to attend their kacheries (office) for the settlement of matters connected with the revenue administration. It was found that the revenue administration of the Country is retarded, because revenue officers, viz., Collectors, Sub-Collectors, Assistant Collectors, Deputy Collectors, Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsildars are not made competent, by express provision of law to issue summons for the attendance of persons or the production of documents in certain cases in which it is their duty to hold investigations. The object of the Act and the purposes for which summonses could be issued by the competent authority are clear from a reading of the preamble to the Act itself.
9. Section 1 of the Act authorizes the officers to summon any person whose evidence may appear them to be necessary for the investigation of any matter in which they are authorized to hold enquiry and also to require the production of any document relevant to the matter under inquiry, which may be in possession or under the control of such person. Section 4 of the Act puts an obligation on such persons who are summoned to produce the documents and to give evidence pursuant to such notice.
10. It is also required to notice that the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Rules, 1959 prescribe the form of summons to produce documents and articles. The form of the rule clearly prescribes the documents or articles intimated therein are required with reference to revenue enquiry. The details of such revenue enquiry are required to be indicated in the statutory notice itself.
11. Admittedly, the Mandal Revenue Officer is not making any enquiry with regard to any matter connected with the revenue administration. There is no enquiry initiated by any of the competent authorities pursuant to which the summonses could have been issued to the petitioners for production of the documents or articles mentioned therein. Nothing is stated in the counter affidavit as to what exactly is the nature of investigation, if any undertaken by the Mandal Revenue Officer and as to whether he is authorized to hold an enquiry with regard to such subject matter as the one authorized under any provision of law. There is no matter which requires settlements connected with revenue administration.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever to hold that the so called revenue summons in Form No.2 issued for production of documents by the Mandal Revenue Officer suffer from incurable legal infirmities and without jurisdiction. The respondent Mandal Revenue Officer arrogated to himself a power, which does not exist in him. The Mandal Revenue Officer obviously cannot make any enquiry with regard to the right, title and interest of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question. The dispute, if any, between the petitioners and the decree holders in CS No.14 of 1958 may have to be resolved elsewhere. The Mandal Revenue Officer, in law, is not authorized to intervene and resolve any such disputes.
13. At any rate, if the Mandal Revenue officer is acting under the directions of the Collector for identifying the properties of the decree holders pursuant to the directions of this Court in execution of the decree in CS No.14 of 1958, appropriate directions can always be obtained from this Court on execution side in CS No.14 of 1958. Neither the District Collector nor the Mandal Revenue Officer adopted any such procedure.
14. Viewed from any angle, it is difficult to sustain the proceedings.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are allowed with costs. Let a writ of Mandamus be accordingly issued.