Administrative authorities cannot regularize disputed transactions under Section 5-A of the ROR Act; such matters must be resolved by civil courts.

ORDER :

K.SARATH, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal/Respondent No.2 in Case No.F2/1146/2021, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Proceedings No.G/1007/2007, dated 10.08.2007 in issuing 13-B Certificate in respect of the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.21 Guntas in Sy.Nos.500, 514 and 515, situated at Mangamma Gudem Village, Erstwhile Mothkur Mandal, now, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri- Bhongir District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’) was dismissed confirming the order passed by the respondent No.4.

2. Heard Sri G.Vasanth Rayudu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Seetharam Reddy Kancharla, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 7 and perused the record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.8.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.452, 457, 458, 459, 460, 492, 500, 514, 515, 521 and 541, situated at Mangamma Gudem Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District and she was also issued with patta pass book and title deed in respect of the said land vide Patta No.265, Title Deed No.148786 and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land having acquired from her husband, who succeeded through partition from his ancestors.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that out of the total extent of land, she gave an extent of Ac.2.21 guntas to the brother of her husband i.e. respondent No.5 on lease for the maintenance of her mother-in-law. The respondent No.5, without any manner of right, approached the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, by falsely representing that the petitioner had executed a Sada Bainama (Sada Sale Deed) in his favour and sought to regularize and implement the same under Section 5-A of Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for brevity ‘ROR Act 1971’) for issuance of 13-B Certificate. On coming to know the same, the petitioner filed her objections before the respondent No.4 and gave her statement on 17.04.2007 stating that she never sold the property to the respondent No.5 through Sada sale deed. But, without considering her statement, the respondent No.4 issued proceedings No.G/1007/2007 on 10.08.2007 in favour of the respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed ROR appeal before the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, where it was numbered as ROR Appeal No.2999/2007. Consequent on constitution of the Special Tribunals as per ROR Act, 2020, the same was transmitted to the respondent No.2/Special Tribunal.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the petitioner obtained necessary documents under Right to Information Act and on perusal of the same, it was found that the document dated 31.05.1999 submitted by the respondent No.5 is a forged one, which bears signature of the petitioner as well as her daughter Goli Madhavi Latha. The signatures on the said document are forged and she has no necessity to sell the same through Sada sale deed. In regularization of Sada sale deed proceedings under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971 once the objection was raised regarding the genuineness of Sada sale deed. the respondent No.2 ought to have directed the respondent No.5 to obtain decree from the competent Civil Court, but without considering the said submissions made by the petitioner, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.6, in whose favour the respo