HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 7502 OF 2011. DATED 23rd March, 2011 BETWEEN V.Manoj Kumar …Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Adilabad District Adilabadand ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 7502 OF 2011 . ORDER: Questioning the validity and legality of the order passed by the first respondent in case No.D4/ROR/10/09, dated 20.02.2010, the present Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner claims to be the owner and pattadar of the land in an extent of Ac.16.95 cents situate in Sy.No.43 of Ippal Neveagon village, Asifabad Mandal of Adilabad District. It is stated that the Village Revenue Officer of Ippal Naveagon village merely observing the cultivation of the subject land, entered the names of the respondents 2 to 4 in the pahani patrika in respect of the subject land, although they have not actually cultivated the said land for the years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. Questioning the same, the petitioner requested the Tahsildar, Asifabad to rectify the entries made in the pahani patrika in respect of the subject land. On such request, the Tahsildar, Asifabad, got the matter enquired into by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and passed orders dated 01-01-2009 in Proc.No.B/2179/008 cancelling the entries so made by the Village Revenue Officer in respect of the subject land in the cultivation column of the pahanies for the aforesaid years. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Asifabad. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Asifabad, by his order dated 16.03.2009 in Proc.No.G/PSK.120/2009, set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 1.1.2009 and allowed the appeal. Questioning the same, the petitioner herein filed revision before the Joint Collector, Adilabad District, who after hearing both the parties, dismissed the revision by his order dated 20.02.2010 passed in case No.D4/ROR/10/2009. The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the arguments as was raised before the lower revisional authority- Joint Collector, and inter alia submitted that the sale deed dated 17.12.1964 is a concocted document and therefore the revisional authority ought not to have relied on the same. He pointed out that respondents 2 to 5 have no interest or title over the subject land and they have no concern with the subject land and the writ petitioner is the pattadar and owner and possessor of the subject land. He further submits that the Land Reforms Tribunal under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings ) Act, 1973 computed the subject land in the holdings of the petitioner as he has been the owner and therefore the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 16.03.2009 is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the case file. Earlier, respondents 2 to 4 have filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer for validation of the said document and transfer of the patta of the subject lands on their names based on the alleged registered sale deed. The Mandal Revenue Officer, after conducting due enquiry, mutated the subject land in favour of respondents 2 to 4 and dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioner directing him to approach the competent Civil Court for reddressal of the grievance. Even the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also ended in dismissal directing him to approach the Civil Court. The Sub- Collector, Asifabad, though upheld the order of the MRO, rejected the claim of respondents 2 to 4 for issuance of Pattadar Pass books by his order dated 04.04.2005 and directed them to approach the Civil Court. Questioning the same, respondents 2 to 4 filed revision before the Joint Collector, Adilabad, who by his order dated 20.02.2010 in Rc.No.D1/ROR/5/2005, allowed the revision petition holding that there is evidence on record to establish that the respondents 2 to 4 herein have purchased the subject land from the original pattadar Sri V.Waman Rao. It is apt to extract the operative portion of the said order, which reads as under: “ The Mandal Revenue Officer, Asifabad in his proceedings dated 24.1.1994 observed that as per records, Sri Vairragade Waman Rao S/o Sadashiv Rao is the pattadar of suit land since 1951 to 1962. The land has been exchanged by this pattadar in the family arrangements (partition) with his coparceners. There may be exchange of land under Section 103 of TPA Act 1929 but the records of such changes are not available in the office. The land has been allocated as the share of Sri V.Vinayaka Rao who expired in the year 1964 and his elder on Sri V.Madhusudhan Rao. In the instant case, the revision petitioner is having evidence that they have purchased the suit land from the original pattadr Sri V.Waman Rao whereas there is no record available to show the changes effected i.e how suit land is transferred from V.Waman Rao to Sri Vinayaka Rao grand father of the respondent ( Writ Petitioner hererein). In view of the above, it is clearly revealed that the suit land has been purchased by the revision petitioner from the original pattadar and his family members (respondents 2 to 4 herein) are in possession. Hence, the revision petition is allowed and the direction issued by the Sub Collector Asifabad vide J/2137/94 dated 4.4.2005 is hereby set aside. The Tahsildar Asifabad is directed to take further necessary action in this case. Be that as it may, in the second round of litigation, the writ petitioner filed revision before the first respondent questioning the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 16.03.2009 whereby the order of the Tahsildar dated 01.01.2009 cancelling the entries made in respect of the subject land in favour of respondents 2 to 4 was set aside. Even the Joint Collector- revisional authority-first respondent in his order, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, after elaborate consideration of the material before him, observed that Sri Katkuri Mallaiah, S/o Lahanu has purchased the subject land through registered sale deed dated No.366/A/1964, dated 17.12.1964 from Vairagade Waman Rao, S/o Sadashiv Rao for a consideration of Rs.400/- and since then, he and his brothers are in continuous possession. Holding so, the Joint Collector dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Earlier, coparcener of respondents 2 to 4 filed a claim in Form VI under ROR before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Asifabad, for validating the Registered Sale Deed dated 17.12.1964 in respect of the subject land. The said claim was enquired into in detail by the Mandal Revenue Officer by issuing notices to both sides and thereafter held that claimants (respondents 2 to 4 herein) are the possessors of the subject land since the date of purchase i.e. 17.12.1964 and Sri Vairagade Madhusudhan Rao, S/o Vinayak Rao was the pattadar on the date of purchase of the land, who acquired the title in succession. Further, though the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land was computed by the Land Reforms Tribunal in the holdings of the family members of the petitioner, but the said proceedings are not made available either before this Court or before the lower revisional authorities. Hence, the said contention need not be countenanced. From the order impugned in this Writ Petition, it appears that respondents 2 to 4 have filed suit O.S.No.29 of 2008 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad, based on the foot of aforesaid registered sale deed and entries made in their favour in respect of the subject land and the said suit is still pending consideration. The petitioner can as well contest the said suit. It appears from the two rounds of litigation, as held by the lower revisional authorities, that the respondents 2 to 4 herein purchased the subject land through registered sale deed dated 17.12.1964 from its original pattadar for valid consideration. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the said registered sale deed dated 17.12.1964 is a concocted document and the same cannot be relied on. It is well settled that the disputed questions of fact, as to whether the said registered sale deed is a fictitious document or otherwise cannot be gone into in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 23rd March, 2011. Msnro