P. Sambasiva Rao vs Joint Collector and Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The land in survey Nos. 123, 133, 134, and 142 of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring about 60 acres was owned by Sri Janardhan Pershad. He sold the same in favour of Sri Amritlal and Jivanda Kotecha, through sale deed, dated 14-05-1965. Kotecha, in turn, sold the land in favour of Rameshchandra Mehta and 7 others, through sale deed, dated 23-04-1966. Respondents 4 to 8 are said to have purchased the land from Mehta and others under an unregistered document on 30-03-1988. One of the sons of Janardhan Pershad, by name, Bala Pershad, who was said to be minor in the year 1965, executed an agreement of sale, dated 19-09-1993, in respect of Acs.46.22 guntas of land, in the above survey numbers, in favour of the petitioner.

Respondents 4 to 8 filed an application u/s 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ''the Act''), before the Tahsildar, Maheswaram, the 3rd respondent herein, with a request to validate the transaction. Through an order, dated 24-03-2003, the 3rd respondent validated the transaction in favour of respondents 4 to 8. The petitioner filed an appeal u/s 5-B of the Act, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd respondent herein, against the order of validation. The appeal was dismissed on 02-03-2007. Revision filed by the petitioner before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 1st respondent herein, was also dismissed on 26-05-2008. Hence, this Writ Petition.

The petitioner contends that the very sale made by Janardhan Pershad was illegal, inasmuch as the share of minor was alienated, without following the prescribed procedure. He further contends that the 3rd respondent had violated the procedure prescribed for validation of transactions u/s of the Act, in several respects. He also contends that respondents 2 and 3 have virtually determined the title of the parties, though it is totally outside their respective jurisdictions.

Respondents 4 to 8 filed counter-affidavit. They plead that they have derived valuable rights under an unregistered document, dated 19-09-1993 (sic. 30-3-1988), and they availed the remedy provided for u/s 5-A of the Act. According to them, the agreement of sale said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner, is invalid in law, since the property was sold way back in the year 1965.

Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 8.

On an application made by respondents 4 to 8 u/s 5-A of the Act, the 3rd respondent conducted necessary enquiry and passed orders, dated 24-03-2003, validating the transaction in their favour. The petitioner claims rights in respect of the same land, on the strength of an agreement of sale executed by one Mr. Bala Pershad. On his own accord, the petitioner did not file an application u/s 5-A of the Act, nor did he file a suit for specific performance. Assuming that there is any defect in the proceedings issued in favour of respondents 4 to 8, the petitioner does not have any right to challenge the same, because he has not acquired perfect title, vis-a-vis the land. It is only when he gets an order of validation u/s 5-A of the Act, which is permissible in law, or obtains a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale, that he can assert his rights vis-a-vis the land. Therefore, the very challenge made by the petitioner to the orders, dated 24-03-2003, passed by the 3rd respondent, is a bit shaky.

The petitioner, however, has a genuine grievance as regards certain observations made by respondents 2 and 3 (sic.1) in the orders passed by them in the appeal and revision, respectively. The scope of appeal or revision against an order passed u/s 5-A5-A of the Act, is limited. The authorities have only to verify whether the prescribed procedure has been followed and whether there exists any legal or factual infirmity in the proceedings. It is impermissible to pronounce upon the title of the parties, in such proceedings. Disputes, touching upon title, can be decided only by the civil Courts. Section 8(2) of the Act, in a way, provides that any orders passed or proceedings issued under the Act, would be subject to adjudication in a suit that may be filed by the aggrieved parties. There is nothing in that provision to indicate that the proceedings initiated u/s 5-A are kept outside its scope.

For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without interfering with the orders under challenge, but directing that the observations made therein, in relation to the title of the parties, are outside the scope of such proceedings. It is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law.

There shall be no order as to costs.