GAZULA DASARATHA RAMA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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: