WP/582/2009 of Kunuru Narsimha Vs The Joint Collector, Nalgonda at on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is hled seeking following relief:

. "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or directionpa-rticularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring theorder dt.2O.9.2OO8 in Revision Case No.F2l [1496612OO7 ][of ][the]1", respondent herein and also the Order [No.A/696/O6]dt. 18.8.2OO7 of the 2"a respondent herein, [as ][illegal, arbitrary,]unreasonable, violative of [principles ][o[ ][natural ][justice ][and]also violative of the [provisions ][of ][A.P. Rights ][in ][Land ][and]Pattedar Pass Books Act 1977 and [a-lso ][violative of ][Articles ][14,]2l and 300-! Of the Constitution of [India and ][issue ][a]consequential direction to the respondents [herein ][not ][to ][give]effect to the same..."

2. Heard Sri G. Venkata Narayana, [learned counsel ][for ][the]petitioner, and Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, [Iearned ][senior ][counsel]appearing on behalf of respondent [No.3 ][as well as learncd Assistant]Government Pleader for Revenue appearing [on ][bchall o[ ][respondent]Nos. I and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the [petitioner ][submiLs ][that ][the ][pctitioner]is the or.t,ner and possessor of [agricultural ][land ][to ][an ][cxtent ][of]Ac.4.OO gts. in Sy.No.53O of Chityal [Vitlage ][and ][Mandal, ][Nalgonda]Drstrict, and he acquired the same by [way ][of ][succession. ][He ][further]submits that respondent No.3 filed [application ][before ][respondent]No-2 invoking the provision of Section [5-A ][ol ][rhc ][A.P- ][Rights tn ][Land]ancl Pattadar Pass Books Act, I97 I [(hercinaftcr ][called ][brevitl', ]['the]

Act) for seeking [validation ][and ][regulari ][zation ][of the ][alleged]agreement of [sale ][dated ][26.03.1996 on the ][ground ][that ][the petitioner]sold the said ProPertY [to ][him'][ He ][also ][submits ][that ][respondent ][No ][2,]without issuing any [notice ][and opportunity ][to ][the petitioner' ][issued]13-B certifrcate in [faovur ][of ][respondent ][No'3 ][on ][18'08'2007]regularizing [the ][said ][agreement ][of ][sale, ][though, ][respondent No'2 ][is]not having any [authority ][or ][jurisdiction ][to regularize the unregistered]of [sale, especially ][the petitioner ][disputing ][the genuinity ][of]agreement the said document

3. I . Questioning [the ][said order, ][the petitioner filed ][revision ][before]respondent No.l under [Section ][9 ][of ][the Act and the ][revisional]authority, without [considering the grounds raised ][by ][the ][petitioner ][in]the memorandum [o[ revision ][petition, ][simply dismissed ][the ][revision']without giving any [reasons ][and ][the ][same ][is ][contrary ][to ][lau' ][He]further contcnded [that ][respondent ][No.l ][and ][2 ][ought ][to ][have ][dircct]the respondcnt [No.3 ][to ][approach ][the ][competent ][civil ][Court ][for]enforcement of [the ][alleged agreement ][of ][sale']respondent No.l under [Section ][9 ][of ][the Act and the ][revisional]authority, without [considering the grounds raised ][by ][the ][petitioner ][in]the memorandum [o[ revision ][petition, ][simply dismissed ][the ][revision']without giving any [reasons ][and ][the ][same ][is ][contrary ][to ][lau' ][He]further contcnded [that ][respondent ][No.l ][and ][2 ][ought ][to ][have ][dircct]the respondcnt [No.3 ][to ][approach ][the ][competent ][civil ][Court ][for]enforcement of [the ][alleged agreement ][of ][sale']

3.2. [n support [o[ ][his contention, ][he ][relied ][upon ][the Division ][Bench]judgment ol this Court in I(onkana [Ravinder ][Goud ][and others ][v']Bhavanarishi [Co-operative House ][Building ][Society, ][Hyderabad]and othersr [contending ][that ][the ][agreement ][of ][sale cannot ][bc]considercd [as ][a ][transfer ][within ][the meaning of Section 5-A of the ][AcL']' [toot ][(j) ][AL.D ][6:-l ][(t)u)]

He also relied upon the [judgment ]of [this ][Court ][in V. ][Krishnaiah ][and]others v. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar [and others2.]

4. Per contro, learned senior counsel appearing [on ][behalf ][of]unofficial respondent contending that [respondent ][No.3 ][had]purchased the subject property from the [petitioner ][through ][sada ][sale]deed (simple sale deed) dated 26.03.1996 [by ][paying valuable ][sale]consideration. Respondent [No.3 ]has [made ][an ][application ][before]respondent No.2 invoking the [provision ][of ][Section ][5-A ][of ][the ][Act, ][for]seeking validation of the [said sada ][sale ][deed. ][Respondent ][No.2, ][after]lollowing the due procedure as [contemplated ][under the ][provisions ][of]thc Act as well as the Rules [made ][thereunder, ][validated ]lregiarizedthe sada sale deed and also [issued ][13-B ][certificate vide ][proceedings]No.A/696/06 dated 18.O8.2007 [and ][respondent ][No.3 ][has ][paid ][an]amount of Rs.9,120/- towards [registration ][charges.]

4.1 Hc further contended that [Respondent ][No.2, ][after ][due]venhc:rtion o[ the records and after considering [the ][recitals ][of ][the]sada sale deed dated 26.03.1996, [rightly ][validated the ][said document]and issued 13-B certihcate on [18.O8.20O7. ]Questioning [the ][above]said proceedings, the [petitioner filed revision ][before ][rcspondent ][No'1]zrnci the rcvisional authority [after ][considering ][the ][contentions o[]respectivc parties and [after ][due verification ][of ][lhe ][records, ][rightly]clisnrissed the revision [petition, ][by ][its ][order ][dated 20 ][09 ][2O08, ][ancl]l00r(lti\t.Dl9l there is no [illegality or irregularity ][in ][the ][impugned order ][passed by]respondent [No.1 conhrming ][the order of ][respondent ][No'2 ][to ][invoke]the [jurisdiction ][of ][this ][Court ][under ][Att\cle ][226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of]India.

5. [-Learned ][Assistant ][Government Pleader contended ][that]respondent [No.2, having ][exercised ][the ][powers conferred ][under]Section 5-A [of the Act, validated ][the ][sada sale ][deed ][by collecting ][the]stamp duty [and ][registration ][charges ][and issued ][13-B ][certificate']Respondent [No. ][1 ][rightly ][confirmed the orders ][passed ][by ][respondent]No.2 by its [order ][dated ][20 ]['O9 ]['2OO8 ][and ][the ][petitioner is ][not ][entitled]any relief, [much ][less ][the relief sought ][in ][the ][writ ][petition']

Having [[considcred ]][[the rival ]][[submissions ][made ][by ]][[made ][by ]][[by ]][[the]]

6. Having [[considcred ]][[the rival ]][[submissions ][made ][by ]][[made ][by ]][[by ]][[the]]respective [parties ][ancl ][alter ][perusal ][of ][the ][material ][available ][on]record, it [reveals ][that ][rcspondcnt ][No ][3 is claiming the ][rights ][over the]property basing [upon ][the ][sada ][sale deed ][dated ][26'03'1996 ][executed]by the petitioner' [From ][perusal ][of the ][said sada sale deed' ][it ][reveals]that respondenl [No.3 ][had ][paid ][an ][amount ][of ][Rs'5'O00/- ][on]26.O3.1996 [and ][subsequently ][remaining amount ][of ][Rs'65'000/ ][- ][was]paid on 20.O4 [.1996]It lurther reveals [from ][the ][record ][that]No.3 [has ][made ][an ][application ][before respondent ][No ][2]respondent thc [provisions ][ol ][Section ][5-A of the Act ][seeking]invoking regularizalion / validation [of ][the ][said ][sada sale ][deed' ][Respondent]No.2, after issuirrg notice [to the ][respective ][parties ][and ][aftcr]

conducting enquiry, [validated ][the ][sada sale deed ][and ][issued ][13-B]certificate [under the ][Rules ][on ][18'08'2007' ][Pursuant ][to ][the ][same']the name of [respondent ][No'3 ][was ][mutated ][in ][the ][revenue ][records]and pattadar [pass ][book ][and ][title ][deed ][were also issued ][in his ][favour']Questioning [the ][above ][said order, ][dated ][18'08'2O07' ][petitioner ][filed]re,rision [petition ][invoking ][the ][provision ][of ][Section ][9 ][of ][the ][Act' ][The]revisional authority, [after ][considering ][the contentions ][of ][both ][parties]and also [after ][due verihcation of ][the ][records, dismissed ][the ][revision]petition by [giving ][cogent ][reasons ][holding ][that ][the ][nature ][of ][the]document [executed ][by ][the petitioner amounts ][to ][sada ][sale deed ][and]it is not an [agreement ][of ][sale']

7 . It is very much [relevant ][to ][mention ][that ][respondent ][No ][2]issued notices [to ][both the ][parties ][and ][petitioner ][had ][engaged]but [he ][has not ][rlled any ][objections. ][Hence, ][the contention]counsel, o[ Iearned [counsel ][for ][the petitioner ][that ][respondent ][No ][2 ][issued ][13-]B certilicarte [behind ][back ][of the petitioner ][is not ][tenable ][under ][larv']Respondent [No.2 ][after ][fotlowing ][the due ][procedure as ][contemplatcd]undcr thc [Act and ][Rules made thereunder ][validated ][the ][sada ][sale]deccl ancl [issr-recl ][l3-B ][certificate']

8. [nsolar [as ][[he ][contention ][of ][the ][learned counsel ][for ][the]petitioncr [that ][the ][document ][dated ][26'03' ][1996 ][is a ][forged ][and]fabricated [onc, ][rle.:ther ][respondent ][No'2 ][nor ][respondent ][No ][l ][is ][not]h:rving [an1. ][right, authority ][or ][jurisdiction ][to ][decide ][the ][genuinit-v- ][ol]

the said document under the provisions of the Act as we as theRules made thereunder.It is very much relevant to mention herethat Rules made thereunder.It is very much relevant to mention herethat respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not decided the title over theproperty nor genuinit5r of the document.Respondent No. 1, whiledismissing the revision petitioner specihcally heldthat the partieshave to agitate the rights before the Respondent No. 1, whiledismissing the revision petitioner specihcally heldthat the partieshave to agitate the rights before the competentcivil Court toestablish that the document dated establish that the document dated 26.03.1996 is not genuine one. Itis also relevant to place on record that the judgment relied upon byis also relevant to place on record that the judgment relied upon bylearned counsel in V.Krishnaiah and the Division Bench judgment ofthis Court in Konttana Ravinder Goud supra are not applicable tothis Court in Konttana Ravinder Goud supra are not applicable tothe facts and circumstances of the case, on the sole ground that therecitals of the document did not come q,ithin the ambit of agreementof sale and said document comes within the ambit of sada/simplesale deed. recitals of the document did not come q,ithin the ambit of agreementof sale and said document comes within the ambit of sada/simplesale deed. Respondent No.2 rightly validated the sada sare deedexercising the powers conferred under Section 5_A of the Act. ThisCourt do not lrnd exercising the powers conferred under Section 5_A of the Act. ThisCourt do not lrnd any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orderthe impugned orderpassed by respondent No.I conlirming the order of respondent No.2by exercising the pou.ersccrnferrcd under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.conlirming the order of respondent No.2by exercising the pou.ersccrnferrcd under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.

9. Accordingly, the r.r.rit pctirion is dismissed.However, thepetitioner is granted libertl. to pursue his remediesunder commonlaw, if circumstances so $,arr.lnt.

In view of dismissal [of ][main ][writ ][petition' ][interlocutory]

applications [pending, ][if ][any, ][in ][this ][writ ][petition ][shall ][stand ][closed']

SD/- K.AMMAJIASSTSTAN$E isrRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEcrK oFFrcER

To,

'1. One CC to SRI G.VENKATA NARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to SRI A.RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI

3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, [High Court ][for the ][State ][of ][Telangana ][at]Hyderabad [OUT]Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies i

BSR

GJb

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

ORDER

ii

WP.No.582 of 2009

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS

@iru%t---,'dw

1[rrE STAI]€/\qot:,01 [rEB ][202[]*-it:lg eD.11 l-.,i5