Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
B. Veeresh and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The Tahsildar and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 1928 of 2010
Decided On : 16-08-2023
ROR ACT - SECTION 5-A - VALIDATION OF UNREGISTERED SALE DEED - JURISDICTION OF TAHSILDAR - VALIDITY OF SALE DEED - SECTION 47 OF A.P. (TA) TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1950 - VALIDATION CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 50(B) - TIME LIMIT - VOID TRANSACTION - PUBLIC POLICY - SECTION 23 OF THE CONTRACT ACT - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - REASONS FOR DECISION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - TRANSPARENCY - JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY - DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT - DUE PROCESS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's father was the owner and pattadar of land. During his service in railways, 2nd Respondent created a private sale deed in respect of subject land alleged to have been executed by B. Veeraiah the father of petitioner's father on 27.04.1968 and filed an application for regularization of the private sale deed on white paper before the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent without issuing any notice to the owners and pattadars whose names are recorded in the pattadar column of pahani patrak which were filed by 2nd Respondent along with the petition in Form No. 10 of rules has issued the proceedings dated 30.01.2008 regularizing the private sale deed dated 27.04.1968. Aggrieved by the above-mentioned proceedings of the 1st Respondent, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Special Grade Deputy Collector Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R. District East and also filed petition for suspension of proceedings dated 30.01.2008 in file No. B4110/2005. Thereafter, the R.D.O. vide orders in File A2/1292/2008 dated 01.08.2009 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to 1st Respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Subsequent to the remand, the 1st Respondent issued a notice to the petitioner and in response to the same, a counter was filed by the petitioner along with all the documents and the 2nd Respondent herein also appeared on the date of hearing and requested time for filing documents. However, the 2nd Respondent did not file any document and the case was posted on 19.12.2009. On the said date the petitioner appeared and on behalf of 2nd Respondent, no one appeared. Thus, the 1st Respondent without conducting any enquiry has simply stated orders reserved. However, the 1st Respondent confirmed the earlier order dated 30.01.2008 passed by the then Tahsildar.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Tahsildar has not served any notice among the persons recorded in the Revenue Records. 2. The Tahsildar issued a proforma order in 13 (B) and (C) on 30.01.2008 without giving narrative orders showing the details of the proceedings initiated on the Xerox copy of the alleged unregistered document dated 27.04.1968. 3. The original document is not verified by the Tahsildar and the original document is also not available in the file. 4. The witnesses of the documents were not been examined by the Tahsildar as contemplated under the provision made U/s. 5(A) of the ROR Act, and under Rule 22 of the ROR Rules. 5. No Notices have been served on the persons affected before changing any entries in the Revenue Records and the alleged original documents of the 2nd Respondent were not verified at all and therefore the impugned order of the Tahsildar, Kandukur Mandal in File No. B/4100/05, dated 30.01.2008 was devoid of merits and suffers from procedural liabilities and hence liable to be set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to validate an unregistered sale deed? 2. Whether the sale deed dated 27.04.1968 is valid? 3. Whether the 2nd Respondent obtained permission under Section 47 of the A.P. (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950? 4. Whether the 2nd Respondent obtained a validation certificate under Section 50(B) of the Act? 5. Whether the sale transaction is void? 6. Whether the writ petition is maintainable? 7. Whether the 1st Respondent's order is sustainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to validate a void document. 2. The sale deed dated 27.04.1968 is void as it was not validated under Section 50(B) of the Act within the prescribed time limit. 3. The 2nd Respondent did not obtain permission under Section 47 of the Act. 4. The 2nd Respondent did not obtain a validation certificate under Section 50(B) of the Act. 5. The sale transaction is void as it is opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. 6. The writ petition is maintainable as the 1st Respondent's order is illegal and ultra-vires. 7. The 1st Respondent's order is not sustainable as it is non-speaking, does not assign any reasons, and does not follow the due procedure.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed as prayed for and the impugned proceedings in File No. B/3088/09, dated 18.01.2010 of the Tahsildar, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District confirming the orders passed in proceedings in File No. B/4140/2005, dated 30.01.2008 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District East Division, Ranga Reddy District issued by Respondent No. 1 are hereby quashed.
ORDER :
1. Heard the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. B. Prakash Reddy appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri K. Venkata Narsimha Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of certiorari and call for records relating to proceedings in File No. B/3088/09 dated 18.01.2010 confirming the orders passed in proceedings in File No. B/4140/2005 dated 30.01.2008 issued by respondent No. 1 and quash the same.
3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
(b) The petitioners’ father was in service in railways and thus, taking advantage of the absence of the petitioners’ father, the 2nd Respondent created a private sale deed in respect of subject land alleged to have been executed by B. Veeraiah the father of petitioner’s father on 27.04.1968 and filed an application for regularization of the private sale deed on white paper before the 1st Respondent. However, in the said application the 2nd Respondent made dead person (B. Veeraiah) as party.
(c) The 2nd Respondent without making the legal heirs of the said Veeraiah as party made the application for regularization of private sale deed said to have been executed by B. Veeraiah on 27-4-1968.
(d) Subsequently, the 1st Respondent without issuing any notice to the owners and pattadars whose names are recorded in the pattadar column of pahani patrak which were filed by 2nd Respondent along with the petition in Form No. 10 of rules has issued the proceedings dated 30.01.2008 regularizing the private sale deed dated 27.04.1968.
(e) Aggrieved by the above-mentioned proceedings of the 1st Respondent, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Special Grade Deputy Collector Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R. District East and also filed petition for suspension of proceedings dated 30.01.2008 in file No. B4110/2005. Thereafter, the R.D.O. vide orders in File A2/1292/2008 dated 01.08.2009 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to 1st Respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
(f) Subsequent to the remand, the 1st Respondent issued a notice to the petitioner and in response to the same, a counter was filed by the petitioner along with all the documents and the 2nd Respondent herein also appeared on the date of hearing and requested time for filing documents.
(g) However, the 2nd Respondent did not file any document and the case was posted on 19.12.2009.On the said date the petitioner appeared and on behalf of 2nd Respondent, no one appeared. Thus, the 1st Respondent without conducting any enquiry has simply stated orders reserved. However, the 1st Respondent confirmed the earlier order dated 30.01.2008 passed by the then Tahsildar.
(h) It is to be noted that, the remand order directed the 1st Respondent to conduct fresh enquiry and pass fresh orders. But the 1st Respondent failed to follow the remand order. The order dated 30.01.2008 in B/4110/2005 was set aside by the appellate authority.
(i) The 1st Respondent admittedly has no jurisdiction to validate a void document and as per Sec. 47 of A.P. (I.A.) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act 1950 for all sale transactions earlier to 1968, the permission under Sec 47 of the Act was mandatory. In the instant case neither permission was obtained under Sec 47 nor Validation certificate under Sec 50 (B) was obtained by 2nd Respondent.
(j) The 2nd Respondent got regularized the alleged private sale deed dated 27.04.1968 on 30.1.2008 after
A void transaction cannot be regularized and a void document cannot be validated.
The main legal point established is that the absence of permission and validation under the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act 1950 renders a sale transaction void and unlawful.
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
The court reaffirmed that judicial authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring all parties are heard before any adverse decisions are made.
Point of Law : Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of inferior tribunal except where the findings are perverse and not based on a....
The main legal point established is the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders under Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passb....
Administrative authorities cannot regularize disputed transactions under Section 5-A of the ROR Act; such matters must be resolved by civil courts.
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
