You are on page 1of 2

Bearing in mind the abovesaid discussion on Article 14 let us examine the two enactments in the

light of which it is contended that the impunged Act is more rigorous and less advantageous than
the other Act.

8. The object of Act III of 1905 is to provide measures for checking unauthorised occupation of
lands which are the property of the Government. What is 'property of Government' is defined in
Section 2. A reading of that Section would disclose that if is applicable strictly to Government
owned properties and may not perhaps apply to properties which the Government have taken on
lease, or properties requisitioned by the Government to which the provisions of the impugned
Act are expressly made applicable. Section 3 provides that the Government may levy assessment
on the lands unauthorisedly occupied and makes provision for the two categories of 'land'
mentioned in that section. It is Section 4 which makes any decision us to the rate or amount of
assessment payable under Section 3 conclusive, not open For any challenge in any civil court.

9. Apart from the levy of assessment under Section 3, Section 5 makes each unauthorised
occupant liable at the discretion of the officer concerned to pay penalty and makes provision in
regard to the two types of 'land' mentioned therein. Section 6, apart from the two modes of
treating the unauthorised occupants mentioned previously, permits the Collector to summarily
evict such an unauthorised occupant subjecting the crop standing on the land to forfeiture. This
Section also provides the manner in which the eviction shall be effected. Section 7 enjoins upon
the officer concerned to issue notice calling upon the unauthorised occupants to show cause
before any action under Section 5 or Section 6 is taken. Section 8 empowers the Government to
make Rules. Section 9 authorises the recovery of assessment or penalty imposed under the Act to
be collected as arrears of land revenue. Section 10 which is material for our purpose provides an
appeal to the Collector from any decision or order passed by a Tahsildar or a Deputy Tahsildar
under the Act and to the District Collector from any decision or order of a Collector passed
otherwise than on appeal and to the Board of Revenue from any decision or order of a District
Collector passed otherwise than on appeal. The Section also confers powers of revision on
District Collector and Board of Revenue in certain cases. The appellate and revisions authorities
are also empowered under the Section to stay the execution of the order appealed against or
sought to be revised. Section 11 puts certain limitations on appeal. It states that no appeal shall
be brought after the expiration of sixty days from the date of the decision or order complained of.

"14. The provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of the
Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III of 1905) so far as they relate to
unauthorised occupation of lands belonging to the Government".

11. On these provisions of the two enactments it was contended by the learned Advocate for
Petitioner that the impugned Act is more rigorous and less advantageous in the following
respects :

1. The Act III of 1905 permits the aggrieved party one appeal and a revision, while the impugned
Act provides only one appeal to the Government.

2. Act III of 1905 provides a remedy of suit to the aggrieved party even in regard to the matters
falling within the ambit of the said Act, while the impugned Act bars the remedy of suit in regard
to matters decided. We do not think that on these grounds, whether singly or jointly the
impugned Act can be said to bo obnoxious to Article 14 of the Constitution.

It is true that the Act III of 1905 provides an appeal as well as a revision, but it must be realised
that the original proceedings are tried by a Deputy Tahsildar, or a Tahsildar or Collector, and in
such cases the appeal is provided to either the Collector if the original order is that of Deputy
Tahsildar and to the District Collector when the order is that of Collector, The District Collector
and the Board of Revenue have been clothed with the powers to revise the orders of their
subordinates. In the impugned Act on the other hand, although one single appeal is provided that
appeal is to the District Judge who would always be an experienced judicial officer trained in
judicial matters. It may be that the original authority under the impugned Act, is a Deputy
Tahsildar or a Tahsildar, but on matters of fact and law when the Judicial Officer of the District
Judge's rank disposes of the matter in appeal, it cannot be said that the impugned Act is more
rigorous, simply because it does not provide a revision.

You might also like