THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.Nos.2219 and 2304 of 2005 & CRP.No.1368 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 11-4- 2005 made in W.P.No.7893 of 2002, hence they are taken up together for disposal. The appellants in W.A.No.2219 of 2005 are the respondents 4 to 43 in W.P.No.7893 of 2002 and the appeal in W.A.No.2304 of 2005 is filed by Sri Tallari China Pentaiah, who was impleaded as Respondent No.44 in the W.P.No.7893 of 2002 who was subsequently expired and his LRs were brought on record. C.R.P.No.1368 of 2010 is filed by 4 societies as against the order of the Joint Collector, dated 02-03-2002 in File No.F2/3809/2002, in an appeal. Heard Sri P.Venugopal, Sri Vijay B.Paropkari for the appellants and Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The subject matter of both the Writ Appeals and the CRP is the lands bearing Sy.Nos.246 to 262, 265 to 269, 430 to 448, 454, 460 to 464, 517, 538 to 540 situated at Bowrampet village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In respect of these lands there was a dispute between the protected tenants and the land lords. During the pendency of the litigation, the protected tenants have alleged to have executed a General Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as ‘G.P.A’) in favour of one Mr.Laxma Reddy and Mr.S.Venkata Reddy. The G.P.A holders despite the pendency of the litigation between the pattedar and the protected tenants made certain alienations treating the land to be a non-agricultural land between the years 1982 to 1985. The litigation between the pattedar and the protected tenants culminated in a compromise in the year 1990 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The case of the writ petitioners in the writ petition is that they are the Societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 and their members have purchased the property under the registered sale deeds from the G.P.A holders of the protected tenants and that they have approached the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer for mutating their names in the revenue records. The Mandal Revenue Officer, without issuing any notice to the protected tenants, has mutated the names of the four Societies vide common order dated 13-03-1997 in File Nos.A/146/96, A/13219/96 and A/746/96. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, the protected tenants filed appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division. The Revenue Divisional Officer by a common order dated 31-05-1999 in File Nos.A2/7703/1997, A2/7704/1997 and A2/6960/1997 set aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 13-03-1997 on the ground that no notice was issued to the protected tenants. Aggrieved by the said order, the 4 societies preferred statutory revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Joint Collector by a common order dated 30-07-2001 in File No.D5/5191/1999, D5/5192/1999 and D5/5193/1999 confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 31-05-1999. Assailing the correctness of the said orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer as confirmed by the Joint Collector, a Writ in W.P.No.7893 of 2002 has been filed seeking Writ of Certiorari to quash the Common orders dated 30-7-2001 of the 1st respondent/Joint Collector affirming the orders of the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 31-05-1999 and 1-6-1999 and to hold that prohibition of alienation under Section 48-A of A.P.(T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands aCt of 1950 cease to apply to lands converted into non-agricultural lands, and further to hold that the period of prohibition of alienation for a period of 8 years provided under Section 48-A is only from the statutory date of transfer of title under Section 38-E i.e. 1-1-1973 and not from the date of issue of certificate, and apart from that the provisions under Section 48-A restricting alienation by Protected Tenants are intended to protect the landlord and it can be waived by the consent of land holder and tenant and are not mandatory, and to further direct the respondents to record the names of petitioners members as owners and occupants in the village records in pahanies as per the registered sale deeds. The learned Single judge of this Court allowed the Writ observing that since it is an admitted fact that the lands in question are plots and by ordering a change in the pattedar column as plots, neither respondents 4 to 44 nor anybody would be prejudiced. It is well known fact that pahanies are maintained for the purpose of statistics and land revenue collection. If the land is a vacant land or is a plot, the presumption is that possession follows title. So merely because the name of ‘X’ is shown in possessions column of pahanies when it is a vacant site, on the basis of that entry he cannot be said to be in possession. If he is not the owner of the land ‘X’ should do some other over-tact like construction of building etc., therein to establish his possession. Similarly, if some horticulture etc., is undertaken in the vacant plot that person can be said to be in possession. Therefore, merely because the name of somebody is entered in the possessor’s column of the pahani when that plot is a vacant land, it would not be of any evidential value, if that person is not the owner of that vacant land. For that reason also the learned Single Judge was of the view that no prejudice is caused to respondents 4 to 44 by the change ordered by the third respondent, hence it is not really necessary to go into the question whether post decisional hearing and whether ‘useless formality’ theory can be invoked or not for deciding this case since as per Rule 11 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Rules, extracted above, suo motu power is given to the revenue officer to effect change in the revenue registers. So even without an application, third respondent could have affected the change in the relevant column of the pahani. While so, the common order dated 30-7-2001 of the first respondent is set aside and the orders of the third respondent in File Nos.A/146/96, A/1329/96 and A/746/96, dated 13-03-1997 are restored. Hence these appeals. It is the case of the appellants that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, as confirmed by the joint Collector, does not suffer from any legal infirmities. It was argued that Mandal Revenue Officer has had absolutely no jurisdiction to mutate the names of the 4 Societies in the revenue records. The State Legislature has enacted a law namely Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Section 2 (4) of the Act defines the “land”, which reads as follows: "Land" means land which is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, including horticulture but does not include land used exclusively for non agricultural purposes; Section 3 of the Act deals with preparation and updating of record of rights in all lands. Section 3 mandates that the revenue records have to be updated in respect of all lands incorporating (a) the names of all persons who are owners, pattadars, mortgagees occupants or tenants of lands; (b) the nature and extent of the respective rights or interest of such persons and the conditions or liabilities if any, attaching thereto; (c) the rent, revenue or other amount, if any, payable by, or to any of such persons; (d) such other particulars as may be prescribed. Section 3 also states that, if there is any erroneous entry made in the said record, the protest should be made within a period of one year from the date of the notification. Section 4 deals with subsequent acquisition of right, for which the record has to be maintained. Rules have been framed in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act and the Rules are called as Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’). The relevant rules of the Rules are extracted herein below: Rule (4). Procedure for preparation of Record of Rights and updating of the Records of Rights (i) The Record of Rights in Lands in the village shall be prepared in the manner hereinafter provided. (ii) The Commissioner shall issue whenever necessary a notification to make the Record of Rights upto date for the entire State or such area or areas and from such date or dates by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. The said notification shall also be published in two daily news papers circulating in the State of which atleast one shall be in the Telugu language. Rule (5). The Recording Authority shall as soon as may be after the commencement of the Act for the first time and whenever a notification has been issued by the Commissioner to make the Record of Rights upto date in the area in which a village is situate cause to be published separate notices: - (a) (i) declaring his intention of preparing a record of rights in lands in the village for the first time, or declaring the intention consequent on the issue of a notification by the Commissioner to make the record of rights up to date in the village by updating the registry of holdings and by splitting up of joint pattas etc. or (ii) declaring his intention consequent on the issue of a notification by the Commissioner to make the record of rights upto date in the village. (a) by updating the registry of holding by splitting up of joint pattas etc. (b) calling upon all persons claiming any interest in any land in the village to furnish either through the Village Assistant concerned or directly:- (i) a statement in writing in duplicate in Form 1 A, showing the particulars of the land in which an interest is claimed; and (ii) the nature of such interest on or before a specified date to be indicated in the notice not being earlier than fifteen days from the date of publication thereof; and (iii) if a person has interest in lands in more than one village in a Mandal or in more than one Mandal in a District, he shall file his claim in Form I(A) in triplicate giving the particulars of all the lands in which an interest is claimed Mandal wise and village wise and where person has interest in lands in only one village, he shall append a certificate to the claim in Form I(A) that he does not have interest in lands in any other village in the District. (c) declaring also his intention to hold an enquiry in respect of the above matter in the village on a date to be specified in the notice in this behalf not being earlier than twenty two days from the date of publication of the notice and calling upon all persons interested to appear before him at the said enquiry on the date so specified. (2) The notice referred to in sub rule (1) shall be in Form II and shall be published in the District Gazette of the District in which the village is situate and also in the following manner namely:- (a) by affixture in the chavidi or if there is no chavidi, in any other conspicuous place of the village. (b) by affixture on the notice boards of the Gram Panchayat Office Primary Co operative Agricultural Credit Society or School, if any in the village. (c) by beat of tom tom in the village; (d) by affixture on the notice board of the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the village; and (e) by affixture on the notice board of the office of the Mandal Praja Parishad in which the village is situated. Rule 6. (1) The Recording Authority shall arrange for the receipt of the statement of claims submitted in response to the notice referred to in Rule 5 and shall also arrange for acknowledging the statement of claim on the duplicate, triplicate copy of claims statement and shall, on the date specified in the notice in this behalf, proceed to and hold an inquiry in the village. A Register shall be maintained in the Form No.II A for the claims received in response to the notice in the Form No.II. (2) During the enquiry referred to in sub rule (1) the Recording Authority shall: - (a) receive further statements of claims in writing that may be submitted to him; (b) hear any oral representation made in respect of any claim and make a summary record of such representation; and (c) examine the relevant registers, records and accounts already maintained in respect of the lands in the village for the purpose of collection of land revenue or otherwise. Rule 7. (1) The Recording Authority holding an enquiry under Rule 6 may, if he so thinks fit, adjourn the enquiry to a later date or dates. (2) Every such adjourned enquiry shall be held in the village and the date or dates to which the enquiry is adjourned shall be announced in public by the Recording Authority himself at the time of adjournment on the day on which the enquiry could not be taken up or finished. Rule 8 .During the course of the enquiry referred to in Rule 6 above the Recording Authority may, if he considers it expedient:- (a) summon the attendance of any person for the purpose of examining him; (b) require any person to produce any document believed to be in his possession; and (c) enter upon, inspect and measure or cause to measured any land. Rule 22. Regularisation of certain alienations or transfers of land (1) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue a general Notification in Form No.IX, calling for applications from the persons who are recorded as occupants in Adangal Pahani Patrika or in Record of Rights prepared earlier by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document for declaring such alienation as valid. Such notification shall be published in the District Gazette which the village is situated and also in the following manner, namely: (i) by affixture in the chavadi or if there is no chavadi, in any other conspicuous place of the village; (ii) by affixture on the notice boards at the Gram Panchayat office, Primary Agricultural Co operative Society and school if any; (iii) by beat of tom tom in the village; (iv) by affixture on the notice board of the Mandal Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the village; and (v) by affixture on the notice board of office of the Mandal Praja Parishad in which the village is situated. (2) The alienee or transferee shall file application in Form No.X on or before 29-2-1996 on the notification issued under sub rule (1) to the Mandal Revenue Officer, provided the alienation or transfer took place before 31-7-1989. (3) On receipt of the application under sub section (2) of Section 5 A of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue notice to the alienor or transferor in Form No.XI specifying therein the date on which and the time at which he proposes to enquire into the application. He shall also cause to issue a notice in Form No.XII to all other persons believed to be interested in the land specifying therein, date, time and place at which he proposes to enquire into the application. Only un registered documents shall be considered under Section 5 A of the Act. (4) On the day so appointed or any other day to which the enquiry may be adjourned by him, shall, the Mandal Revenue Officer after hearing the parties and on examining their documents and witnesses, if any, and after taking such further evidence as he may consider necessary to satisfy himself that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of any the provisions of the Acts referred to in rule 9(i) (a)(iv) complete the enquiry. (5) (i) After completion of the enquiry under sub rule (4) above, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall require the alienee or the transferee under Section 5(A) of the Act, to deposit through a challan in the treasury an amount equal to the registration fees and stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 as fixed by the registering officer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer in Form No.XIII A, on the basis of the value of the property arrived, within the time fixed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, not exceeding one month from the date of the communication and receipt of the order: Provided that in case the Mandal Revenue Officer considers it expedient he may grant further extension of time:- (ii) On the deposit of the amounts through a challan in the treasury as under Clause (i), the Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue a certificate in Form No.XIII B as required under sub section (4) of Section 5 A of the Act to the alienee or the transferee declaring that alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate. (iii) A copy of every such certificate shall be communicated in Form XIII C by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Sub Registrar having jurisdiction over the area in which the land in respect of which the Certificate has been granted is situate and the Sub Registrar shall file the certificate in the relevant registration records and index them after ensuring collection or registration fee and stamp duty from the party under Clause (i). (6) The Recording Authority shall on production of the certificate issued under sub section (4) of Section 5 A of the Act make an entry in the Record of Rights in Forms 1 and 1B to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property from the date of the issue of the said certificate. The Recording Authority and the Mandal Revenue Officer shall make necessary entries in the Record of Rights in land in Forms 1 and 1B under proper attestation and referencing to files of the Mandal Revenue Officer. (7) Thereafter a title deed and pass book shall be issued to the occupant in the category of owner Pattadar. Thus, on a reading of the Rules referred to above, it is clear that there should be an enquiry before passing a final order and when the members of the Societies i.e, the writ petitioners have not purchased agricultural lands, the Act itself becomes inapplicable, and therefore, the Societies at the first instance had no right to approach the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer for mutation. Having regard to the statutory provisions, the Mandal Revenue Officer ought to have conducted an enquiry, and therefore, the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer is bad and contrary to the aforementioned statutory provisions. The learned Single Judge did not look into the matter from this perspective, and therefore, we are of the firm view that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous being contrary to law and the same is accordingly set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in KONKANA RAVINDER GOUD VS. BHAVANARISHI CO OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY HYDERABAD[1]wherein it was held as under: “78. AS many as five vendors were dead on the date when the applications were filed by the Society and when order was passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Rule 22 of the Rules required the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue notice to the alienor or transferor in Form XI specifying therein the date on which and the time on which he proposes to enquire into the application. No such notice was issued to the vendors. Notice was stated to have been published for information of the general public. It was a different notice in Form No. XII, which is required to be issued for the information of the General Public. Separate notice in Form XI was required to be issued to the vendors. Failure to issue such notice for which a finding of fact has been recorded by the Joint Collector also vitiates the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order was passed against those who were dead on that day and was passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer having no jurisdiction in the matter. Such an order is without jurisdiction and is a nullity. It is a fundamental principle of law that a defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary, territorial or in respect of subject- matter, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree or order and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. A decree or order passed by a Court or authority without jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. Reference in this regard be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan. The Joint Collector was thus justified in having set aside the said order of the Mandal Revenue Officer and with such order of the Joint Collector no interference was called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The setting aside of the order of the Joint Collector has resulted in springing into action an order of Mandal Revenue Officer, which is nullity, without jurisdiction and is in violation of principles of natural justice and thus cannot be sustained.” Relying upon the above judgment, it was contended that the order of the learned ingle Judge is contrary to the said Judgments of this Court. We agree with the same. As already noticed the litigation between the protected tenants and the pattedars culminated into a compromise in the year 1990. The 4 societies have questioned the grant of 38-E certificate passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, dated 26-04-2000 in File No.L/508/2000 by filing a statutory revision under Section 90 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy Act, 1950. The Joint Collector by order in Case No.F2/3809/2000, dated 02-030-2002 dismissed the said appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the Societies in the above writ appeals and also in C.R.P.No.1368 of 2010 contended that once the G.P.A holders of the protected tenants have executed a registered sale deeds in favour of the members of the Societies, it means as if the protected tenants themselves have executed the sale deeds and that they cannot rescind the same. It was also contended that once the ownership is transferred, the protected tenants have no say in the matter, and therefore, the M.R.O was justified in recording the names. Learned counsel thus justified the findings of the learned Single Judge of this Court and contended that the learned Single Judge was right in relying upon Rule 11 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 in allowing the writ petition. It was also the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Societies that once the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 38-E Certificate is issued, no 38-E certificate can be issued for the second time. It was also argued by the counsel for the respondents in the writ appeals that both the parties agreed that the lands are non-agricultural. We have noticed the learned Single Judge’s recording on the said fact and we have also seen the contentions of the appellants in W.A.No.2219 of 2005 made before the learned Single Judge. The writ appellants did not say or admit that the lands are non- agricultural. Further, any concession on fact is not binding, but a