HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5159 of 2007 Date: September 12, 2011 Between: M.Narasimha Reddy, S/o.late Venkat Reddy, aged about 70 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Bulkapur village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District … Petitioner And Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankerpally, Ranga Reddy District, and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition, in terms of the amended prayer, is filed questioning the order dated 18.03.1996 passed vide case No.B/1925/89, by the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankerpally Mandal, as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, by orders dated 05.11.2003 and 28.04.2006 respectively as illegal and arbitrary. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under: The dispute relates to agricultural land admeasuring 6.03 guntas in Sy.No.64/A A situated at Mokila village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Undisputedly, the aforesaid land was standing in the name of the late father of the petitioner by name Sri Venkat Reddy. The 4th respondent herein, claiming that he has purchased the said land by an unregistered sale deed on 24.11.1964 from the late father of the petitioner, submitted an application before the 1st respondent-MRO for regularisation of alienation and transfer as provided under Section 5-A of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). On behalf of the petitioner, objections were filed on 13.11.1995 stating that the aforesaid land belongs to the objection-petitioner, i.e. the petitioner herein and it fell to his share in the family partition and the patta stands in the name of his father late Venkat Reddy, who died on 23.07.1962. It is stated that the said land was given to Sri P.Narayana, the elder brother of the 4th respondent, to cultivate the same on batai basis and after some time, the 4th respondent came into possession and was also cultivating the land on crop- sharing basis. Specific objection was raised before the 1st respondent-MRO stating that the document dated 24.11.1964 which is claimed to be the sale deed executed by the late father of the petitioner, is a false and fabricated document and his father was not alive on the aforesaid date, i.e. 24.11.1964 and he has died on 23.07.1962 itself; as such the question of executing the document in the year 1964 did not arise. By filing such objections, petitioner requested to reject the claim of the 4th respondent for, regularisation of alienation and transfer. The 1st respondent-MRO passed the impugned order dated 18.03.1996 vide case No.B/1925/89, validating the transfer pursuant to the document dated 24.11.1964 claimed by the 4th respondent and further ordered to incorporate the name of the 4th respondent as pattadar and possessor in the revenue records. The 1st respondent recorded a finding to the effect that by virtue of the purchase claimed by the 4th respondent vide ordinary sale deed dated 24.11.1964, he is entitle to transfer of patta with regard to the land in question. Aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent-MRO dated 18.03.1996, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-appellate authority as provided under Section 5-B of the Act. The 2nd respondent, though referred to the objections of the petitioner, failed to consider the main objection of the petitioner that the document claimed by the 4th respondent is a fabricated one. The appellate authority, relying on the sworn statement of the adjacent pattadar of the schedule land confirmed the order of the 1st respondent-MRO and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by his order dated 05.11.2003. As against the said order, the petitioner carried the matter in revision before the 3rd respondent- Joint Collector, but the same also ended in dismissal by order dated 28.04.2006 in Case No.D5/391/2004 without going into merits on the ground that repeated adjournments are sought. Questioning the order of the 1st respondent dated 18.03.1996, as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, this writ petition is filed. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the father of the petitioner was the owner and possessor of the land in question and he died on 23.07.1962. It is the case of the petitioner that in the family partition, the aforesaid piece of land fell to his share. It is pleaded that in spite of objections to the claim of the 4th respondent for regularization and alienation, the 1st respondent has not considered the valid objections made by the petitioner and he has passed the impugned order in a routine manner. It is alleged that even the appellate and revisional authorities have not considered the specific grounds raised by the petitioner and rejected the same. Though the writ petition is of the year 2007 no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, but the 4th respondent has filed counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that he has purchased the land in question by unregistered sale deed dated 24.11.1964 executed by the late father of the petitioner and his name is shown in the pahanis as possessor. While denying the allegations of the petitioner that no notice is served on him in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, it is averred that the 1st respondent-MRO, after following due procedure, passed order dated 18.03.1996 and the same is confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities and there are no grounds to interfere with the same in this writ petition. When the matter was listed for hearing on 30.06.2011 and 08.07.2011, learned Government Pleader was directed to produce the file relating to the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act of the 1st respondent. When the matter is taken up today, the original file is placed on record. I have heard Smt.J.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri G.Madhusudhan, for the 4th respondent and perused the original file relating to the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the sale deed relied on by the 4th respondent dated 24.11.1964 is a fabricated one and in spite of the specific objections before the 1st respondent; without considering the same, the impugned order is passed. It is contended that the father of the petitioner died on 23.07.1962; as such the document dated 24.11.1964 alleged to have been executed by the late father of the petitioner is a fabricated one. It is submitted that in view of the serious dispute with regard to execution of the document itself, the 1st respondent-MRO is not competent and empowered to adjudicate such claims in the enquiry initiated under Section 5-A of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments in support of the case of the petitioner. V.Krishnaiah and others v. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and others[1] and Pureli Chandraiah v. Joint Collector, Karimnagar District and others[2]. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and the counsel for the 4th respondent that the 4th respondent has purchased the land in question from the late father of the petitioner, who has executed unregistered sale deed in his favour and he was inducted into actual and physical possession of the same. It is submitted that the 1st respondent, who is the competent authority under Section 5-A of the Act, read with Rule 22 of the Rules, has conducted detailed enquiry into the matter and passed orders for validating the same; as such there are no grounds to interfere with the same. In view of the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel, the main question which falls for consideration is in view of the objections filed by the petitioner, denying the very execution of the document dated 24.11.1964, which is alleged to have been executed by the late father of the petitioner, whether the Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to decide such question in an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Having given a serious thought to the said issue, I have also perused the objections put forth by the petitioner before the 1st respondent-MRO in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. In the objections filed by the petitioner, he has categorically stated that his late father was the pattadar and possessor of the land in question and he has not executed any sale deed as claimed by the 4th respondent, on 24.11.1964. A specific objection is raised stating that the document dated 24.11.1964 is a fabricated one as much as the father of the petitioner was not alive on the aforesaid date as he died on 23.07.1962 itself. It is submitted that in spite of raising such objections and also grounds before the appellate authority, the same have not been considered and impugned orders are passed. In normal course, when the revisional authority has considered the matter, it is a case to be remitted for reconsideration by the revisional authority. But, as much as, in this case, the petitioner is disputing the very execution of the document in question, by the late father of the petitioner, by taking a specific stand that the same is a fabricated one, and as I am of the view that such serious factual dispute cannot be resolved in an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, I have decided to consider the matter on merits. I have perused a copy of the document produced by the 4th respondent contained in the original file along with the application in the prescribed format seeking regularization of alienation. The said document contains the thumb impression alleged to have been made by the late father of the petitioner. The said thumb impression is disputed by the petitioner and he has alleged that the same is a fabricated one. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to Section 5-A of the Act, which reads as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, [where a person is an occupant] by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alienee or the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid.” A reading of the said provision coupled with Rule 22 of the Rules makes it clear that the scope of the enquiry and jurisdiction conferred on the Mandal Revenue Officer is limited to the case where there is no serious dispute with regard to alienation. If there is no serious dispute with regard to alienation, the Mandal Revenue Officer is empowered to collect the value equivalent to the stamp duty and registration charges and to issue a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid. Having regard to the objection of the petitioner that the document itself is a fabricated one, it requires recording of evidence and proof; if necessary by sending the document to an expert for comparison of the thumb impression on the document with that of the admitted thumb impression on any of the documents executed by the late father of the petitioner. When such serious objection is raised with regard to execution of the very document itself, denying the same, it is not open to the Mandal Revenue Officer to embark upon enquiry so as to decide whether such document is executed or not in the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act. It is to be noted that the petitioner, in his objections, has also raised an objection stating that his father died in the year 1962 itself; as such there was no question of executing document by his father in the year 1964. In the case of V.Krishnaiah and others (1 supra), as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a learned single Judge of this Court, while examining the scope of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules has categorically held that the scope of enquiry under Section 5-A is very limited and restricted and further held that the jurisdiction of the recording authority under the Act is confined to cases where no dispute exists as to the execution of the document. I have also taken a similar view in the case of Pureli Chandraiah v. Joint Collector, Karimnagar District and others (2 supra). In the said case, this Court has taken a view that in the enquiry initiated under Section 5-A of the Act, Mandal Revenue Officer cannot embark on inquiry so as to decide title and other complicated questions in the said enquiry. Both the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner support the case of the petitioner. Further, it is to be noted that though the petitioner has raised specific grounds, the appellate authority, without considering the same and giving much credence to the sworn statement of the adjacent land owner to the land in question, has confirmed the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is totally not understandable how, in a situation like this, the sworn statement made by the adjacent land owner will help, to decide the issue in question. Without examining the grounds raised by the petitioner, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner and the same is upheld by the revisional authority. Having regard to the objections raised by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 1st respondent-MRO has grossly erred in passing the impugned order dated 18.03.1996 going beyond the scope of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and without considering the tenable objections raised by the petitioner, which is confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities in a routine manner. As such, the order of the 1st respondent-MRO dated 18.03.1996, as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, is fit to be set-aside. Accordingly, the order dated 18.03.1996 passed vide case No.B/1925/89, by the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankerpally Mandal, the order dated 05.11.2003 passed in proceedings No.C/2641/96 by the 2nd respondent-RDO, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, and further the order dated 28.04.2006 passed in Case No.D5/391/2004, by the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, are quashed. Further, there shall be a direction to the respondents to restore the entries in favour of the petitioner, which are changed pursuant to the order of the 1st respondent-MRO dated 18.03.1996 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Writ petition is allowed with the directions as indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 12, 2011 MRR [1] 2007 (3) ALT 720 [2] 2011 (4) ALT 387