THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1308 OF 2007 DATED 12TH AUGUST, 2010 BETWEEN Totta Jangaiah and Others … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, At Lakadikapool, Hyderabad. And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1308 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioners assail the proceedings dated 19.09.2006 of the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, the first respondent, in rejecting the request of the petitioners for validation of their unregistered sale document under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1971’) on the ground that such cases pertaining to city surrounding areas were not being entertained. They also assail the proceedings dated 12.11.2006 passed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent, rejecting the petitioners’ request for regularization of the unregistered document as not tenable. A consequential direction is sought to the second respondent to consider the petitioners’ application dated 28.12.2005 in accordance with Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act of 1971 and regularize the unregistered sale document. The petitioners are brothers. It is their case that their father purchased the subject property admeasuring Ac.0.16 guntas in Survey No.69 of Budvel Revenue Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under unregistered sale deed dated 05.12.1964. The petitioners submitted application dated 28.12.2005 seeking regularization of this document under the provisions of the Act of 1971. As there was no communication from the authorities in this regard, they filed Writ Petition No.19069 of 2006 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 15.09.2006 directing the competent authority to pass orders within eight weeks. Pursuant to the aforestated order, the proceedings impugned in the present writ petition came to be passed. The petitioners assail the rejection of their request by the second respondent citing the ground that he had been instructed by the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners’ application keeping in mind the fact that he should not usurp title declaring powers of the Civil Court in the process. The petitioners seek a consequential direction to the authorities to regularize their unregistered sale document under the provisions of the Act of 1971. The Tahsildar (formerly, Mandal Revenue Officer), Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent, filed a counter stating that the then Mandal Revenue Officer had addressed letter dated 05.07.2006 to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, seeking permission for validation of the petitioners’ document under the provisions of the Act of 1971. It is stated that instructions had been issued to the Mandal Revenue Officers to obtain prior approval of the Collector considering the fact that the urban Mandals falling under the urban agglomeration are covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. With regard to the rejection of the petitioners’ request, it is stated that a decision had been taken not to regularize unregistered documents in the urban and city surrounding Mandals and refer such matters to the Civil Court under Section 8(2) of the Act of 1971. The reason cited for this decision is that it avoids multiplicity of civil cases. Upon a query from this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, having received instructions upon verification, stated that the petitioners’ land continues to be agricultural in nature. Thus, the general observation in the counter that most of the lands in the urban Mandals of Ranga Reddy District had been converted into non- agricultural lay-outs is not applicable to the petitioners’ land. Once it is admitted that the petitioners’ land continues to be agricultural in nature and the Act of 1971 is squarely applicable thereto, it is not open to the State to refuse to act in accordance with the provisions thereof by citing wholly untenable reasons. Section 8(2) of the Act of 1971 has no role to play in a matter where there is no dispute with regard to the existing entries in the revenue records. The authorities cannot refuse to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them under the various provisions of the Act of 1971 and drive the parties to civil litigation. Once the Act of 1971 provides for regularization of unregistered documents pertaining to agricultural lands in accordance with Section 5-A of the Act of 1971, the authorities cannot deny the benefit thereof to the petitioners and relegate them to civil remedies forcibly. The orders under challenge are therefore illegal and are accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners’ application dated 28.12.2005, if the same is otherwise in accordance with the prescribed procedure, for regularization of their unregistered sale document dated 05.12.1964 in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder and take necessary action in the matter within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforestated direction. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 12TH AUGUST, 2010. VGSR/PGS