1. Unregistered land sale, validation under Section 5-A ROR Act, and revision of Mandal Revenue Officer's validation order by Joint Collector. (Para 2000371300002 , 2000371300003 , 2000371300006 )
Back
Next 
2011 Supreme(AP) 400
2011 (3) ALT 683
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD
Mrs. Santhosh Verma & Others
Versus
The Joint collector & Others
WRIT PETITION No.8033 OF 2002
Decided on : 30-04-2011
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS ACT : S.5(a)(4), S.5(a)(9), S.3
ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS RULES : R.22(6)
ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS RULES : R.22(6)
Headnote
A) RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS ACT, 1971, Sections 5-A (4) and 9 (unamended) - A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, Rule 22 (6) :- Even prior to the amendment of Section 9, an order of Mandal Revenue officer issuing a validation certificate issued under Section 5A (4) is subject to the revision powers of the Collector. This is because substitution or correction of ROR constitutes correction or updating of the records and there is no question of providing of retrospective operation to the provisions of Section 9 in this case. (Para 52)
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
revenue administration
-
ror act provisions
- revision jurisdiction under section 9 (Para 2000371300023, 2000371300024, 2000371300025, 2000371300026, 2000371300027, 2000371300044, 2000371300045, 2000371300046, 2000371300050, 2000371300009, 2000371300012, 2000371300013, 2000371300019, 2000371300020, 2000371300028, 2000371300029, 2000371300030)
- validation of land transfers under section 5-a (Para 2000371300011, 2000371300037, 2000371300038, 2000371300039, 2000371300040, 2000371300043, 2000371300009, 2000371300010, 2000371300032, 2000371300033, 2000371300034, 2000371300035, 2000371300036, 2000371300041, 2000371300042)
- appellate jurisdiction under section 5-b (Para 2000371300015, 2000371300016, 2000371300017, 2000371300018, 2000371300051)
-
ror act provisions
-
revenue administration
-
property law
-
land transfers
- unregistered instruments (Para 2000371300002, 2000371300003, 2000371300037)
-
land transfers
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:K. Ramakrishna Reddy for B. Mahender Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, Govt. Pleader for Revenue Counsel, R2 to R7, P. Venugopal, Advocate.
For the Petitioners:K. Ramakrishna Reddy for B. Mahender Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, Govt. Pleader for Revenue Counsel, R2 to R7, P. Venugopal, Advocate.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contend Joint Collector lacked jurisdiction to revise pre-amendment Section 5-A order; respondents contend Collector had jurisdiction as Section 5-A orders update record of rights under Section 3. (Para 2000371300004 , 2000371300005 , 2000371300021 , 2000371300022 , 2000371300031 )
3. Collector had revisional power under unamended Section 9 against Section 5-A orders; no conflict between the two Division Bench decisions; matter referred for decision on merits. (Para 2000371300050 , 2000371300053 )
4. Whether the Collector had revisional jurisdiction under unamended Section 9 of the ROR Act against orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A?
Yes, because the order under Section 5-A(4) results in correction of entries in the record of rights, which constitutes updating of record of rights under Section 3, and the Collector's revisional power under unamended Section 9 covers examination of regularity of any record of rights prepared or maintained under Section 3. (Para 2000371300044 , 2000371300045 , 2000371300046 , 2000371300012 , 2000371300028 , 2000371300029 , 2000371300030 )
5. Whether the Mandal Revenue Officer qualifies as a recording authority or appellate authority under the unamended Section 9 of the ROR Act?
No, the Mandal Revenue Officer is not notified as the recording authority under Section 2(10) and is not an appellate authority under any provision of the ROR Act, yet orders under Section 5-A are amenable to revision because their effect amounts to updating the record of rights under Section 3. (Para 2000371300026 , 2000371300027 )
6. Whether there is a conflict between the Division Bench decisions in M.B. RATNAM'S case and K.R. GOUD'S case?
No, both decisions lay correct law. M.B. RATNAM'S case dealt with appeal under Section 5-B (appellate jurisdiction), while K.R. GOUD'S case dealt with revision under Section 9 (revisional jurisdiction). The Collector's revisional power under unamended Section 9 includes orders under Section 5-A. (Para 2000371300052 , 2000371300053 )
7. Whether A.P. Act 9 of 1994 has retrospective operation in conferring revisional powers against pre-amendment orders under Section 5-A?
The question of retrospectivity does not arise because the Collector's revisional power under the unamended Section 9 already covered orders under Section 5-A, making the amendment by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 merely a clarification of existing power. (Para 2000371300047 , 2000371300048 , 2000371300049 )
8. Whether an appeal under Section 5-B against an order under Section 5-A passed before insertion of Section 5-B is maintainable?
No, because on the date the proceedings were initiated and the order was passed under Section 5-A, there was no right of appeal under Section 5-B, and Section 5(5) does not deal with updating entries in the passbook based on the certificate issued under Section 5-A(4). (Para 2000371300017 , 2000371300018 , 2000371300051 )
JUDGMENT :
G. Rohini, J.
This matter is listed before us pursuant to the Order of Reference, dated 23.10.2008 made by a learned Single Judge in view of a conflict between two Division Bench decisions i.e., M.B. RATNAM v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.R. DISTRICT (2003 (1) ALD 826 (DB) and K.R. GOUD v. BHAVANARISHI CO-OP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY (2003 (5) ALD 654 (DB) with regard to the maintainability of the Revision Petition against an order under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘ROR Act’).
2. For proper appreciation of the question that requires consideration by this Bench, it is necessary to notice the facts in brief.
3. The 1st petitioner executed an unregistered Agreement of Sale, dated 25.7.1980 in favour of the petitioners 2 to 4 in respect of Ac.0-28.12 guntas (3.403 square yards) of land situated in Sy.No.20 of Habsiguda, Rangareddy District and delivered possession. On 21.7.1989 the petitioners 2 to 4 made an application under Section 5-A of the ROR Act as amended by A.P. Act 1 of 1989 for validation of the transaction dated 25.7.1980. After due enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a validation certificate dated 9.5.1990. Against the said order, the respondents 2 to 7 herein filed a Revision Petition on 07.07.1995 under Section 9 of the ROR Act before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District. The said Revision Petition was allowed by order dated 18.2.2002 thereby setting aside the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a Certiorari to quash the order dated 18.2.2002 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.
4. It is primarily contended by the petitioners that the Joint Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act as amended by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 with effect from 31.10.1993 against the validation order dated 9.5.1990 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the ROR Act.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, while denying the plea that the 1st petitioner alienated the land in question to the petitioners 2 to 4 under an un-registered Agreement of Sale, dated 25.07.1980 and delivered possession, it is contended that the so-called unregistered agreement had been fabricated for the purpose of the present case. It is further contended that in fact the land in question was a non-agricultural land and therefore the proceedings for validation of the transaction under Section 5-A of the ROR Act were not maintainable at all. It is also contended that the Joint Collector after perusing the material available on record and after hearing both the parties while recording a finding that it was a non-agricultural land had rightly set aside the validation order made under Section 5-A of the Act. While pointing out that whereas the alleged agreement of sale was executed on 25.7.1980, the petitioners sought for validation under Section 5-A only in the year 1989, it is also contended that there were no bona fides on the part of the petitioners.
6. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.B. RATNAM’S case (1 supra) in support of his contention that the Joint Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Petition under Section 9 as amended with effect from 31.10.1993 against the order dated 9.5.1990 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the Act. Another Division Bench judgment in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) was also brought to the notice of the leaned Single Judge. Observing that there is a conflict between the above said two decisions, the learned Single Judge by order dated 23.10.2008 referred the matter for consideration by Full Bench. That is how the matter is placed before us.
7. We have heard Sri K. Ramakrishna Red
