THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8230 of 2009 April 13, 2010 Between: Masood Ahmed, S/o. Ghulam Dasthagir And others … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8230 of 2010 ORDER: The three petitioners statedly purchased Acs.10.00 (out of Acs.14.26 guntas) in survey No.13 situated at Kothwalguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal in Ranga Reddy District from Karamat Ali, who appears to have obtained an order from the third respondent under Section 5-A of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act) whereunder the agreement of sale dated 27.10.1973 in favour of vendor was regularized by the Tahsildar in proceedings No.A2/3068/1985, dated 17.10.1985. Aggrieved by the same, fourth respondent and another filed appeal before second respondent. The same was allowed on 30.5.2007 and the matter was remitted to third respondent for de novo enquiry. Petitioners then preferred revision under Section 9 of the Act. First respondent passed orders on 20.3.2010 setting aside the orders of respondents 2 and 3 and gave liberty to parties – petitioners and fourth respondent; to go to the Civil Court for adjudication of their claims. While doing so, Joint Collector observed that the Tahsildar is not competent to validate the sale under an agreement, and therefore, his proceedings dated 17.10.1985 are unsustainable. The order of Joint Collector is assailed. The counsel for petitioners submits that by reason of observations made by the Joint Collector, there is likelihood of creation of encumbrances on the property. On this ground, the impugned order cannot be faulted. The question whether the Tahsildar is competent to regularize a sale under Section 5-A of the document when document is sought to be regularized is disputed, is no more res integra. There cannot be any doubt that the remedy under Section 5-A of the Act for regularizing the unregistered sales is a summary remedy. It is not a substitute for a suit for declaration of title or for a suit for cancellation of a sale deed in respect of immovable property. The question often arises is as to the jurisdiction of the Tahasildar under Section 5-A of the Act for entertaining an application for regularization of a sale when there is a serious dispute by the vendor that he/she did not execute the document. In V.Krishnaiah v Joint Collector[1] this Court considered a similar question and came to the conclusion that when there is no dispute about the execution of document the Tahasildar can exercise power under Section 5-A of the Act and that if there is any dispute regarding said execution, the dispute has to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court. The relevant observations are as follows. The experience shows that, wherever the Legislature hand intended to confer the power of a civil Court upon an administrative or quasi-judicial authority, or a different forum, either an independent, procedure is prescribed or the one, that applies to civil Courts is extended to them. To the extent the power of adjudication is conferred on the alternative fora, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is taken away through specific provisions of law. This becomes necessary because the jurisdiction of a civil Court is comprehensive. Further, the exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil Courts would depend upon the efficacy of the remedy that can be granted by the alternative forum. If the matter is examined on the touchstone of these principles, it emerges that hardly any powers of a court to adjudicate the disputes are conferred upon the recording authority. He cannot record evidence. He is not trained to adjudicate the disputes involving complicated questions, such as capacity to contract, succession, testamentary, or otherwise, limitation etc. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that the jurisdiction of the recording authority under the Act in relation to the regularization under Section 5-A is confined to cases, where, no dispute exists as to the execution of the document. If there is any dispute as to the execution of the document or any other contentions are raised, the dispute has, invariably to be adjudicated by a civil Court. In view of the above decision, the impugned order of Joint Collector is unexceptionable. It is needless to mention that any observations made by the authorities while exercising the jurisdiction under the Act would not in any manner bind the Civil Court while adjudicating the title dispute. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 13, 2010 YS [1] 2007 (3) ALT 720