THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.5592 OF 2002 Date: 15-02-2008 Between : 1. Veerapally Rama Rao and 7 others. … Petitioners And 1. D.V. Narasa Raju and 14 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.5592 OF 2002 ORDER : This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 3.4.1998 passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhongir as confirmed by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda by order dated 4.7.2000. The facts, in brief, are as under : The petitioners herein claim to be the owners and possessors of the different extents of land situated in Sy.Nos.169 to 172 and Sy.Nos.175 to 185 of Dathaiplly Village, Thurkapally Mandal, Nalgonda District, having purchased the same under Registered Sale Deeds dated 18.1.1997 an 21.1.1997. It is stated that pursuant to the said sale, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Thurkapally vide proceedings dated 18.9.1997 ordered mutation of the entries in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds to the petitioners. The said order dated 18.9.1997 was challenged by the respondents 1 to 8 herein by preferring an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Bhongir. The said appeal was allowed on 13.4.1998 by the Sub-Collector thereby setting aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 18.9.1997 and directing to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the respondents 1 to 8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a Revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the ROR Act, 1971’) before the Joint Collector, Nalgonda - the respondent No.15 herein. By order dated 4.7.2000 the respondent No.15 set aside the order of both the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the Sub-Collector and directed both the parties to get their rights decided by the competent Civil Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the lands in question were originally owned and possessed by the respondents 9 to 13 herein. They entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent No.8 herein agreeing to sell the land in question at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per acre. However, the 8th respondent failed to obtain the registered sale deed within the time stipulated. Thereafter the respondents 9 to 13, through their General Power of Attorney-holder one K. Srinivas, sold the land in question to the petitioners herein under 8 Registered Sale Deeds dated 18.1.1997 and 21.1.1997. The petitioners claim that they were also put in possession of the respective lands. While so, it appears that the very same land was sold to the respondents 1 to 8 herein by the respondents 9 to 13 under sale deeds dated 2.5.1997. On the basis of the said sale deeds, the respondents 1 to 8 set up a rival claim over the land in question and contested the application made by the petitioners for mutation in the revenue records. The Mandal Revenue Officer, having accepted the claim of the petitioners that they were the first purchasers, directed mutation of their names in the revenue records. However, the Sub-Collector reversed the said order on appeal holding that under the power of attorney executed by the respondents 9 to 13, the General Power of Attorney Holder was authorized to get registration before the Sub-Registrar only in respect of the sale to the respondent No.8 and therefore he was not competent to execute the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners herein through sale deeds dated 20.1.1997 and 22.1.1997. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed holding that the action of the General Power of Attorney holder was beyond the scope of General Power of Attorney executed in his favour. It is contended before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the registered sale deeds in favour of the respondents 1 to 8 dated 2.5.1997 were not valid since the respondents 9 to 13 had no subsisting interest by the date of sale. It is also contended that since admittedly the petitioners were the first purchasers, the subsequent purchase by the respondents 1 to 8 from the respondents 9 to 13 did not create any title in their favour. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to get their names mutated in the revenue records and in case the respondents 1 to 8 want to set up any rival claim it is for them to approach the Civil Court to establish their title and in the absence of such declaration the respondents 1 to 8 cannot seek mutation in the revenue records. Thus, it is contended that the respondents 14 and 15 committed a grave error in refusing mutation in favour of the petitioners. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is pleaded that they are bona fide purchasers under the registered sale deeds. It is also claimed that the General Power of Attorney executed by the respondents 9 to 13 in favour of K.Srinivas was subsequently revoked on 4.2.1997. Having heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and having perused the material on record, it is clear that there is a dispute between the parties as to the title over the land in question. Apparently the petitioners herein as well as the respondents 1 to 8 are claiming title in respect of the same land through the respondents 9 to 13, the original pattadars. Whereas the petitioners are claiming title under the registered sale deeds executed by the respondents 9 to 13 through their General Power of Attorney-holders, the respondents 1 to 8 are claming title under the sale deeds executed by the respondents 9 to 13 themselves. The case of the respondents 9 to 13 is that the General Power of Attorney executed by them was subsequently revoked and at any rate under the power of attorney the General Power of Attorney-holder was authorized to execute sale deeds only in favour of the 8th respondent. These are all the aspects which require consideration by the competent civil court on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced by both the parties. Either the Mandal Revenue Officer or the respondents 14 and 15 are not competent to make any roving enquiry into such questions of fact and law in exercise of the powers under ROR Act, 1971 In the circumstances, the respondent No.15 was justified in relegating both the parties to a competent civil court. The said order which does not suffer from any infirmity warrants no interference and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 15–2-2008 gbs