IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY THE 1st DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 26536 of 2003 Between: M. Gopal, S/o Adivaiah, R/o Ramachandrapuram, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy at Medak. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. 4 G. Lakshminarayana, S/o Late G. Viswanatham, Hindu, R/o 4-1-1236/1/B, King Koti Road, Hyderabad. 5 G. Ramakrishnaiah, S/o Late G. Vishwanatham, H.No. 5-4-778/1, Abids, Hyderabad. 6 G. Padmavathi, W/o late G. Veerabhadraiah, Hindu, R/o 4-1-1236/1/B, King Koti Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the Order of the 1st respondent bearing No. F3/27/ROR/99-F3/6459/98 dt. 27-3-2002 as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.S.N.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA} O R D E R: The petitioner claims that himself and one Guruva Rao purchased different extents of lands in Bhanur village of Patancheruvu mandal, Medak District (as specified in para 3 of the writ petition) from the respondents 4 to 6 herein under a registered sale deed dt. 15.6.1980 and were put in possession and since then they continued in possession. The petitioner applied to the 3rd respondent for regularization/validation of the transfer in his favour under the provisions of Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land And Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The 3rd respondent, by the order dt. 16.11.1980, in purported exercise of powers under Section 5-A (4) and Rule 22 (5) (ii) of the Act validated the transfer in favour of the petitioner and recognized the alienation, after collecting registration fee and stamp duty, in accordance with the procedure enjoined by the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents 4 to 6 preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent which authority by the order dt. 30.6.1998 and also by the order dt. 6.7.1998 upheld the order of the 3rd respondent and rejected the appeal. The respondents 4 to 6 applied to the 1st respondent for revision of the orders of the lower authorities. The 1st respondent by the order dt. 30.7.2002 allowed the revision and quashed the certificate issued by the 3rd respondent, by the order dt.16.11.1980 and directed the 3rd respondent to make necessary and consequent changes in the records of rights and other revenue records, namely restoring the status quo ante i.e. prior to the 3rd respondent’s order dt. 16.11.1980. For allowing the revision, the 1st respondent, on a perusal of the record concluded that the appellate order of the 2nd respondent was faulty as the docket order of the 2nd respondent proceedings indicates that the matter was posted to 15.7.1998 but however disposed of the appeal on 30.6.1998 i.e. prior to 15.7.1998, to which date the appeal was posted. In so far as the 3rd respondent’s primary order is concerned, the 1st respondent- revisional authority recorded that the notices required to be served on the vendors (respondents 4 to 6) under Section 5-A of the Act was not properly served and the 3rd respondent record merely discloses that as these respondents were not residing in the village, the notices were published in the village. The 1st respondent on this factual matrix came to the conclusion that as there was no proper effectuation of the notices on the vendors, the appellate order is invalid and unsustainable. It requires to be noticed that the case of the respondents 4 to 6 is that they merely entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner on 5.8.1987 but neither delivered the possession of the lands nor executed a deed of sale, whether registered or not. According to these respondents, it is the petitioner who created a forged document and presented the same as a sale deed dt. 15.6.1980 and applied for validation under the provisions of the Act. In the light of serious contest as to the very execution of the instrument, in the considered view of this court, the assumption of the 3rd respondent that notices are deemed to have been served on the respondents 4 to 6 by mere ‘tom tom’ in the village cannot be countenanced and cannot be equated to a due process, particularly as the valuable rights of the parties are involved. On the aforesaid analysis, the conclusion of the 1st respondent that the order of the 3rd respondent dt. 16.11.1980, as confirmed by the second respondent by the order dt. 6.7.1998, cannot be sustained, is impeccable and warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to represent to the 3rd respondent to initiate the process for validation of the un- registered sale deed dt. 15.6.1980 earlier presented to the 3rd respondent for validation. On such representation from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent shall initiate de novo the process under Section 5- A of the Act by issuing notices to the respondents 4, 6 and 7. The respondents 4, 6 and 7 shall, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, furnish to the 3rd respondent by affidavits the addresses at which they reside and shall sensitize him, from time to time, as to any change in their addresses so as to enable him (the 3rd respondent) to issue notices to the respondents 4,6 and 7, pursuant to the petitioner’s application for validation of the sale deed. After the respondents 4,6 and 7 submit or lodge their objections to the petitioner’s application for validation on any of the grounds advised, the 3rd respondent shall consider all such objections and record a decision on each of those objections as part of the exercise under Section 5-A of the Act. The writ petition is disposed of as above upholding the order of the 1st respondent and directing the 3rd respondent to take up process on the petitioner’s application under Section 5-A of the Act, as directed above. No order as to costs. ______________ 1st April, 2009. Note: Issue CC in Five days. B/o Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 26536 OF 2003 Dated: 1st April, 2009.