IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH (20TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4136 of 2007 Between: Veranki Rama Chandra Rao … Petitioner And: Marredu Venkata Narayanamma … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4136 of 2007 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 01.08.2007 in OS No.1269 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein, the learned Senior Civil Judge, declined to send the unregistered agreement dated 09.12.2001 to the Stamp Collector for the purpose of impounding. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for specific performance based on agreement dated 09.12.2001 said to have been executed by the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff, his parents, who hail from Vuyyuru, shifted to Vijayawada, 40 years back and occupied 175 sq. yards in Vidyadharapuram in NTS No.387/23 and raised thatched hut. While so, the Government decided to issue pattas to the hut dwellers for an extent of 87 sq. yards. When the plaintiff sought for patta for the entire 175 sq. yards, it was issued in favour of the plaintiff’s father for 87 sq. yards and in the name of plaintiff for other 87 sq. yards. He further pleads that he paid the compensation for the entire property to the other legal heirs, raised construction in the suit property and allowed the defendant since January 2001 to occupy the same as a tenant, as she is his sister. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, taking advantage of the fact that no document was executed by her for the amount already received and on mediation, subsequently, she executed an agreement dated 09.12.2001 by receiving the entire consideration from the plaintiff, but failed to vacate the premises. The plaintiff got issued a notice dated 02.11.2004 to the defendant, but did not comply with the demand. The plaintiff therefore filed suit for specific performance and for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and for recovery of possession, past and future damages. The defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. She stated that she is the absolute owner of the property and is in possession and enjoyment of the southern half of 175 sq. yards having been inducted into possession in the year 1979, for which the government granted patta subsequently on 09.03.1982 and she perfected her title by adverse possession also. She further alleged that the suit agreement dated 09.12.2001 is a fabricated document. When the matter reached the stage of trial, it appears that the plaintiff made a request to send the suit agreement to the Stamp Collector for the purpose of impounding. The learned Senior Civil Judge by impugned order rejected the said request. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present revision. 4. As seen from the impugned order, the document was previously sent to the Stamp Collector for the purpose of impounding and it was returned by the Sub Collector, Vijayawada on the ground that it cannot be impounded and therefore, the plaintiff made a request to send the document to the District Collector. It is stated that the Sub Collector returned the document on the ground that it is an assigned land, therefore, cannot be impounded. The plaintiff contended that the agreement is valid and binding inter se between the parties, even if it does not bind the State. The defendant would contend that the document is null and void, as it offends Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 9/77 (for short ‘the Act’) and therefore, cannot be impounded. 5. It is not disputed that previously, the plaintiff filed IA No.577 of 2006 under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, requesting the Court to send the document to the Sub Collector for the purpose of impounding. The defendant filed counter, opposing the said application. The document was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada. By letter dated 14.06.2007, the Revenue Divisional Officer, returned the document stating that the same cannot be impounded as it relates to assigned lands and the said transaction is null and void as per Rule 2 of BSO 21 and registration of such document is prohibited in terms of Section 3 of the Act. Subsequently, the plaintiff did not file any fresh application, nor did challenge the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, refusing to impound the document. He seems to have made oral request to the Court to send the document again for impounding and this time, to the District Collector, and based on the said oral request, the impugned order came to be passed. The procedure adopted by the trial Court in passing judicial order on the basis of oral request by the party is unwarranted. When the party seeks any relief from the Court, the same has to be by way of an application filed under appropriate provision of law, which enables him to seek the said relief and the application, shall be supported by an affidavit, disclosing the grounds of reasons that justify the grant of relief prayed for. The other side would certainly be entitled to have an opportunity to oppose the said application by filing a counter and after hearing both sides, the Court is required to pass a reasoned order. 6. In the present case, on earlier occasion, a regular application was filed, which was opposed by the defendant by filing a counter. The impugned order came to be passed without any such application. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 14.06.2007 refusing to impound the document on the ground that it relates to assigned land, the transfer of which is prohibited by the Act is not under challenge in the present proceedings. The question as to whether or not, the Revenue Divisional Officer was justified in refusing to impound the document does not therefore arise for consideration in the present proceedings. As the impugned order came to be passed without there being filed any application for the purpose and the procedure adopted by the trial Court being irregular, it is held that the impugned order is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. It is open to the plaintiff to file a regular application and on such application under appropriate provision of law being filed, the other side may be given an opportunity to file counter and thereafter, the trial Court may pass appropriate orders on its merits. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 20.09.2011 bss