THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.28212 of 2009 Dated : 12.04.2010 Between : S.Ahammad Basha & others … Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.28212 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioners are children of Shaik Immam Saheb and Mohiuddin Bee of Rangasamudram Village. Parents were the owners of the land admeasuring Acs.19.09 cents comprising of various survey numbers. The petitioners allege that after the demise of their parents, they succeeded to the property and they are in possession of the same. They also state that they obtained necessary pattedar passbooks under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity). Sometime in the year 2009, the fourth respondent filed an application before the third respondent under Section 5-A of the Act. He alleged that the parents of the petitioners executed an agreement of sale dated 01.02.1980 for an agreed sum of Rs.30,500/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Five Hundred only). An advance amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) was paid on the date of agreement and subsequently the balance consideration was paid by way of clearing the loan obtained by Mohiuddin Bee. He sought for regularization. The third respondent issued a notice, dated 02.09.2009, under Form XI of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Rules, 1989, (the Rules, for brevity). The petitioners, who statedly partitioned the property after the death of their parents, appeared before the third respondent and objected the application. They denied the agreement dated 01.12.1980 and contended that their parents never executed any agreement. Overruling those objections, the third respondent passed order, dated 05.11.2009, regularizing the same in favour of the fourth respondent. Assailing the same, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. They contended that when the agreement of sale is denied, the Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to regularize the same. They further contend that even before time granted under Section 5-B of the Act for preferring an appeal to Revenue Divisional Officer, the Tahasildar issued Form XIII (A) requesting the Sub-Registrar to fix up the value of the property and fix up the amount of registration fee and stamp duty. The third respondent filed the counter sustaining the order. He also submits that the petitioners appeared before him after receiving notices and denied the agreement executed by their parents in favour of the fourth respondent. In his counter affidavit filed along with W.V.M.P.No.595 of 2010, the fourth respondent made the following allegations. The land, in question, originally belongs to the ancestors of the fourth respondent. But, they were relinquished in favour of Shaik Immam Saheb and his wife. Subsequently, under an agreement of sale dated 01.02.1980 parents of the petitioners agreed to sell the property to the fourth respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-. After accepting the advance payment of Rs.15000/-, they delivered the possession. Subsequently, the fourth respondent discharged the bank loan, which was adjusted towards balance sale consideration. The parents of the petitioners died a decade ago and during this time either the petitioners or their parents never objected the possession and enjoyment of the lands. When the petitioners tried to obtain pattedar passbooks from third respondent, the fourth respondent issued a legal notice dated 07.05.2001 to the third respondent to reject the claim of the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners tried to secure loan from State Bank of India and Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society of Peddatippasamudram and the fourth respondent issued notice to those banks not to sanction loan. In view of these attempts by the petitioners, the fourth respondent approached the third respondent and filed application for regularization, which was issued on 05.11.2009. He denied the allegations of the petitioners that they are in possession of the property and also opposed the writ petition contending that there is alternate remedy for the petitioners. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioners, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) and counsel for the fourth respondent, who reiterated the submissions as disclosed in the affidavits filed along with the applications. 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. I n 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. “21. 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.” Counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on above dicta. Assistant Government Pleader as well as the counsel for the fourth respondent, however, opposed the writ petition relying on section 5-A of the Act. The said provision contains remedy of appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Even an Appellate Authority can consider the relevant law applicable when there is a dispute with regard to the nature of the document allegedly executed by the parents of the petitioners. Therefore, it would be better the matter is considered in the first instance by the Appellate Authority and thereafter Revisional Authority. If this course is not adopted, the fourth respondent, who claims to have obtained the land under an agreement executed in 1980 by the parents of the petitioners, will be denied the right of appeal and revision. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. Petitioners may file an appeal to the second respondent within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when appeal is preferred by the petitioners under Section 5-B of the Act, the same shall be entertained and appropriate orders shall be passed by the second respondent after giving notice to the fourth respondent keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Krishnaiah (supra). With regard to possession, as both parties claimed possession, there shall be Status Quo. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ V.V.S.RAO, J April 12, 2010 sur [1] 2007 (3) ALT 720