IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

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 dtd. 18/1/2010 confirming the orders passed in proceedings in File No. B/4140/2005 dtd. 30/1/2008 issued by respondent No. 1 and quash the same.

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioners' father late Buddolu Gopal was the owner and pattadar of land admeasuring Ac.25-18 gts. in S.No. 775 and 776 of Nednoor Village, Kandukur Mandal, R.R.District having acquired the same by way of family settlement among his brothers and pattadar passbook and title deed books were issued by the 1st Respondent with respect to the same.

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 27/4/1968 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 dtd. 30/1/2008 regularizing the private sale deed dtd. 27/4/1968.

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 dtd. 30/1/2008 in file No. B4110/2005. Thereafter, the R.D.O. vide orders in File A2/1292/2008 dtd. 1/8/2009 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.V 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 dtd. 30/1/2008 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 dtd. 30/1/2008 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. (T.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 dtd. 27/4/1968 on 30/1/2008 after the death of the petitioners' father and the same clearly proves that the sale deed dtd.27/4/1968 was after thought and created. Alongs