S. K. Das, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao is the petitioner. The respondents are (1) the State of Andhra Pradesh, (2) the Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, (3) the Collector of Guntur in Andhra Pradesh and (4) Vishnu Molakala Chandramowleshwara Rao. The petitioner prays that this Court must declare S. 6 of the Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895 (Madras Act III of 1895), hereinafter called the Act, as void in so far as it infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and further asks for an appropriate writ or direction quashing certain orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 in favour of respondent No. 4 in the matter of the latter's appointment as Village Munsiff of a newly constituted village called Peravalipalem. When this petition first came up for hearing we directed a notice to go to other States of the Union inasmuch as the question raised as to the constitutional validity of the law relating to a hereditary village office was of a general nature and might arise in relation to the existing laws in force in other States. Except the State of Andhra Pradesh which has entered appearance through its Advocate-General, none of the other States have entered appearance. The Advocate-General of Andhra Pradesh has appeared for respondents 1 to 3, and respondent 4 has been separately represented before us. These respondents have contested the application and have pleaded that S. 6 of the Act does not violate any fundamental right, nor are the impugned orders of respondents 1 to 3 invalid in law.
(2.) The short facts are these:Village Peravali in Tenali taluq of the district of Guntur in the State of Andhra Pradesh was originally comprised of a village of the same name and a fairly large hamlet called Perivalipalem. The two were divided by a big drainage channel. It is stated that for purposes of village administration the villagers felt some difficulties in the two being treated as one unit. So the villagers, particularly those of the hamlet, put in an application to the Revenue authorities for constituting the hamlet into a separate village. This application was recommended by the Tehsildar and was accepted by the Board of Revenue and the State Government. By an order dated August 25, 1956. Peravali village was bifurcated and two villages were constituted The order was published in the District Gazette on October 15, 1956, and was in these terms: "The Board sanctions the bifurcation of Peravali village of Tenali taluq, Guntur district, into two villages, viz., (1) Peravali and (2) Peravalipalem along the boundary line shown in the map submitted by the Collector of Guntur with his letter Re. A. 4. 28150/55 dated 30th June, 1956. These orders will come into effect from the date of publication in the District Gazette. 2. The Board sanctions the following establishments on the existing scale of pay for the two villages: Peravali:- 1. Village Munsif. 1. Karnam. 1. Talayari. 3. Vettians. Peravalipalem:- 1. Village Munsif. 1. Karnam. 1. Talayari. 1. Vettian." It is convenient to read at this stage sub-s. (1) of S. 6 of the Act under which the bifurcation was made: "S. 6(1). In any local area in which this Act is in force the Board of Revenue may, subject to rules made in this behalf under Section 20, group or amalgamate any two or more villages or portions thereof so as to form a single new village or divide any village into two or more villages and, thereupon, all hereditary village offices (of the classes defined in Section 3, clause (1), of this Act) in the villages or portions of villages or village grouped, amalgamated or divided as aforesaid, shall cease to exist and new offices, which shall also be hereditary shall be created for the new village or villages. In choosing persons to fill such new offices, the Collector shall select the persons whom he may consider the best qualified from among the families of the last holders of the offices which have been abolished."
(3.) On the division of the village into two villages, all the hereditary village offices of the original village ceased to exist under the aforesaid sub-section, and new offices were created for the two villages. We are concerned in this case with the appointment to the office of Village Munsif in the newly constituted village of Peravalipalem. In accordance with the provisions of sub-s. (1) of S. 6 and certain Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, invited applications for the post of Village Munsif of Peravalipalem. Eight applications were made including one by the petitioner and another by respondent 4. Respondent 4, be it noted, is a son of the Village Munsif of the old village Peravali. By an order dated October 18, 1956, the Revenue Divisional Officer, appointed the petitioner as Village Munsif of Peravalipalem,. From the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent 4 and some of the other unsuccessful applicants preferred appeals to respondent 3, the Collector of Guntur, By an order dated April 1, 1957, respondent 3 allowed the appeal of respondent 4 and appointed him as Village Munsif of Peravalipalem. In his order respondent 3 said: "Shri V. Chandramowleswara Rao is qualified for the post. He is the son of the present Village Munsif of Peravali and is, therefore, heir to that post...S. 6(1) of the Hereditary Village Offices Act states that in choosing a person to fill a new office of this kind the Collector shall select the person whom he may consider best qualified from among the family of the last holder of the office which has been abolished. The Village Munsif's post of the undivided village of Peravali was abolished when the village was divided and the new post of Village Munsif of Peravalipalem has to be filled up from among the family of the previous Village Munsif. The same instructions are contained in Board's Standing Order 148 (2).";