Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, DEVENDER GUPTA
Konkana Ravinder Goud - Appellant
Versus
Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad - Respondent
W.A.Nos.1384,1409 & 1773/02
Decided On : 09-05-03
Advocates Appeared :
Mr.B. Mahender Reddy, Mr.N. Vasudev Rao, Mr.C. Gopal Reddy
u/Sec.9 of Act holding that “agreement of sale” is neither alienation nor ‘transfer’ within ambit of Sec.5-A.
Single Judge set aside order of Joint Collector holding that he had no revisional power under Sec.9-A in relation to order passed by M.R.O prior to substitution of Sec.9 by Amendment Act, 1994 and that suo motu revisional power could not be exercised after long lapse of ten years.
Contention that Joint Collector, has no jurisdiction to entertain revisional power u/Sec.9 against orders passed by M.R.O and that certificates issued by M.R.O became final.
Meaning of word “transfer” as contained in Sec.5-A in light of objects and reasons in introducing said provision to regularise unregistered sale transaction, which would not mean to regularise incomplete transfers - Machinery provided under Act is not appropriate machinery for perfecting title merely on basis of agreement to sell - Findings of Single Judge that there is valid transfer of immovable property under agreement of sale - Unsustainable.
Agreement of sale relied upon by Society is not covered by term ‘transfer’ and cannot be treated as an ‘alienation’ or ‘transfer’ within scope and meaning of Sec.5-A - Sec.9 specifically enabling Collector to exercise revisional powers against order passed by recording officer, MRO or RDO.
Amendment in Sec.9 by A.P. Amendment Act 1994 being only clarificatory in nature specifically made it clear that Joint Collector can exercise power of revision even with respect to orders passed by M.R.O prior to amendment - Amendment being clarificatory in nature has also retrospective operation - Findings of Single Judge in holding that Joint Collector would not have exercised revisional powers which had effect of amending modifying or annulling record of right after considerable time - Not justified.
Since order passed by M.RO not only a nullity but even without jurisdiction, question of order becoming final does not arise - Appeals, allowed.
( 1 ) THESE writ appeals are being disposed of by a common order since they are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8558 of 2001 dated 16. 7. 2002 setting aside the order dated 5. 3. 2001 passed by the Joint Collector, R. R. District, Hyderabad purported to be in exercise of his revisional powers under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. By this order, the Joint Collector quashed the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, Rangareddy District dated 18. 12. 1991 in respect of lands bearing S. Nos. 159 (1-33), 162 (14-12), 163 (1-29), 164 (6-36), 165 (11-34) and 166 (4-30) in File No. ROR/1795/91 and S. Nos. 161 (14-18), 167 (10-18) and 168 (14-34) in file No. ROR/1807/91 situated at Kapra Village. The Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to restore the entries in the revenue records in respect of the said lands and to take further necessary action for updating the entries as per the law in pursuance to the occupancy right certificates. The parties were left at liberty to make their claims before the appropriate forum.
( 2 ) FOR convenience sake, the parties are being referred to as were arrayed in the writ petition. While W. A. No. 1384 of 2002 is preferred by Respondents 9 to 26, W. A. Nos. 1409 and 1773 of 2002 are preferred by respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 31 respectively.
( 3 ) THE facts leading to the controversy may briefly be noted: The land admeasuring Ac. 165. 01 gts. covered by S. Nos. 159 to 169, 180 and 182 to 190 situated in Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal within the Hyderabad agglomeration were inam lands and stood in the name of Sri Mahdi AH Khan (Respondent No. 31 and appellant in WA. No. 1773 of 2002 ). Respondents 4 to 30 are the successors-in-interest of those who had been cultivating the land as protected tenants in terms of A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Consequent upon the abolition of the Inams by A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, applications were filed under Section 7 of the Inams Act before the Inams Tribunal and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella for grant of occupancy rights certificates over the inam lands. Respondent No. 31 filed his objections but later a memo was filed on 1. 10. 1981 withdrawing his claim of resumption. By order-dated 24. 11. 1982, the Inams Tribunal granted occupancy rights certificates in favour of the protected tenants. On the basis of Ryotwari Patta Certificates the Mandal Revenue Officer sanctioned mutations in favour of those eligible persons. In these proceedings we are concerned only with a part of the said land.
( 4 ) IT is alleged that on 26. 12. 1982 the petitioner, Sri Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad, a society registered under the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") incorporated for promotion and welfare of the Weavers Community, mainly, for providing house sites entered, into two agreements of sale - one with respect to S. Nos. 159 and 162 to 166 to the extent of Ac. 41. 14 gts. and the other with respect to S. Nos. 161, 167 and 168 to the extent of Ac. 39. 30 gts. totalling to Ac. 81. 04 gts. with the predecessors of Respondents 4 to 30. The society claims that the entire sale consideration was paid through cheques and receipts were also issued for the same and thus the lands stood transferred in its favour by delivering effective actual possession. It is also alleged that irrevocable General Power of Attorneys were executed in the name of office bearers of the society in September, 1983 authorising and empowering them to act jointly and to represent before the various authorities. The society is alleged to have made representation to the Tahsildar, Vallabhanagar Taluk to enter its name in the revenue records in place of the protected tenants. The Tahsildar by proceedings dated 25. 1. 1984 is alleged to have directed the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
