HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19826 of 2004 Date : 27.01.2011 Between : Parsa Sree Ramulu & others. …..Petitioners And Eruva Sanjeeva Reddy & others. …..Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19826 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning order, dated 05.07.1997, passed by the 7th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, in Case No.C/952/97, and also the common order, dated 21.02.2004, passed by the 8th respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in Case Nos.D5/6467/1997 and D5/5505/1999. Necessary facts are as under : Petitioners claim that they are owners of land admeasuring 5.01 acres, covered by Survey Nos.132, 133, 135 to 138, situated at Malkajgiri Village and Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that the father of petitioners 1 to 3 purchased the aforesaid land from the earlier owner and possessor, by name, Eruva Bapu Reddy (wrongly mentioned as Babu Rao in the writ affidavit), pursuant to an agreement of sale, dated 12.02.1967, and the entire sale consideration was paid. It is their case that after the death of the father of petitioners 1 to 3, the petitioners came into possession of the said property, and they have approached the 6th respondent- Tahsildar, for regularization of the agreement of sale under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). On their application, proceedings were initiated for regularization, and the 6th respondent, vide proceedings, dated 16.02.1991, issued in File No.ROR/3136/89, ordered for transfer of aforesaid land in favour of the petitioners, by collecting an amount of Rs.671/- towards stamp duty and registration charges. As against the same, respondents 1 to 5 herein have filed appeal before the 7th respondent, mainly on the ground that the proceedings, dated 16.02.1991, issued by the 6th respondent, were without notice to the original transferor. Thereupon, the 7th respondent passed an order, dated 05.07.1997, by recording that though notices were issued to the transferor in Form Nos.XI and XII as prescribed under the Act and the Rules made there under, notice in Form No.XI was not served on him and that there was an endorsement on the back of the notice that pattadar is not residing at Malkajgiri Village and his residential address at Chilkalguda is not available. On the aforesaid ground and also on the ground that the primary authority-6th respondent has not discussed the effect of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the appellate authority-7th respondent allowed the said appeal and set aside the proceedings, dated 16.02.1991, issued by the 6th respondent. As against the same, the petitioners and the legal heirs of Bapu Reddy, the original pattadar, carried the matter in their respective revision petitions before the 8th respondent. The revisional authority, by way of a common order, dated 21.02.2004, confirmed the order, dated 05.07.1997, passed by the 7th respondent, re-affirming the finding that no notice was served on the transferor before issuing the proceedings, dated 16.02.1991, by the 6th respondent. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that a general notice was issued before issuing the proceedings, dated 16.02.1991, by the 6th respondent, as such, there is no illegality in it. It is submitted that though proceedings were issued by the 6th respondent as early as on 16.02.1991, the revision was filed only in 1997, and therefore, the said revision ought not to have been entertained. It is also submitted that as the land in question has already been used for non- agricultural purposes, the appellate and revisional authorities ought to have agreed with the proceedings issued by the primary authority. I have perused the proceedings, dated 16.02.1991, issued by the 6th respondent-primary authority, the order dated 05.07.1997, passed by the 7th respondent- appellate authority and also the common order, dated 21.02.2004, passed by the 8th respondent-revisional authority. It is to be noticed that the petitioners have moved an application before the 6th respondent seeking alienation on the ground that the father of petitioners 1 to 3 entered into an agreement of sale with the original owner and pattadar, by name, Eruva Bapu Reddy. Regularization of alienations and transfer of lands are governed by the provisions contained under Section 5-A of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. When an application is filed under Rule 22(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules’), under Rule 22(3) thereof, it is obligatory on the part of the Tahsildar to issue notice to the alienor or transferor in Form No.XI, specifying the date on which and the time at which he proposes to enquire into such application. He shall also cause to issue notice in Form No.XII to all other persons believed to be interested in the land specified therein, intimating the date, time and place at which he proposes to enquire into the application. As per the said Rule, only unregistered documents shall be considered under Section 5-A of the Act. From a perusal of the above said Rule, it is clear that when an application is filed under Section 5-A of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules, notice in Form No.XI is to be served on the alienor or transferor, which is mandatory. Mere general notice in Form No.XII is not a substitute for the notice in Form No.XI, as contemplated under the Rules. From a perusal of the orders passed by respondents 7 and 8, it is clear that on filing application by the petitioners, no notice in Form No.XI, was served on the alienor or transferor or his legal heirs. It is also clear from the findings recorded in the orders passed by respondents 7 and 8 that notice could not be served on the ground that the alienor was not residing at Malkajgiri, but was residing at Chilkalguda, and that his house number was also not available. When an application was filed for alienation, it was the duty of the petitioners to furnish correct address for service of statutory notices. In the absence of furnishing correct address, when notices were not served, based on the general notice in Form No.XII, no order can be passed for regularization of alienation or transfer of land within the meaning of Section 5-A of the Act and Rule 22 of the Rules. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the appeal was filed belatedly, there is no such objection raised by the petitioners before respondents 7 and 8, and in any event, when the notice itself was not served and when it was not in the knowledge of the original owner itself, the delay, by itself, is no ground to reject the claim of the original alienor or transferor. When the order was obtained behind the transferor, which will have a far-reaching consequences on the title of the land in question, in the absence of any such objection before the appellate and revisional authorities, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for petitioners, so as to interfere with the order of the revisional authority on the said ground. The further submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that the land in question is covered by structures, which are raised for non-agricultural purposes, also cannot be accepted. Having obtained proceedings from the 6th respondent for regularization of alienation, it is not open for the petitioners to contend now that the appellate and revisional authorities have erred in entertaining the appeal and revision on the ground that the land in question is covered by the structures raised for non-agricultural purposes. In that view of the matter, as the proceedings were issued by the 6th respondent in gross violation of Rule 22 of the Rules and in contravention of the provisions contained under Section 5-A of the Act, and in view of the finding of the appellate and revisional authorities that no notice was served on the alienor in Form No.XI, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the revisional and the appellate authorities, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The further plea of the petitioners that the order for mutation could not have been passed, also cannot be entertained, as indisputably, the petitioners have not acquired right and title to the property, but they claimed possession only based on the agreement of sale, in which event, they also cannot dispute the order of the revisional authority, granting succession. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th January 2011. Kvni/ajr