IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12149 of 2001 Between: K.Vidya Sagar, S/o. Venkata Ramaiah, R/o. Janampet Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Agent to Government, (District Collector) Khammam District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (T.W.) Paloncha, Khammam District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. 4 Vadlakonda Mallaiah, R/o. Singireddipelli Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to Order dt. 22.4.2001 passed by the Learned 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.44 of 1998 and quash the same, as illegal, erroneous both in law and on facts and alos initial records and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12149 of 2001 ORDER: The order of the Agent to Government, Khammam in C.M.A.No.44 of 1988, dated 22.04.2001 is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner, who is admittedly a non-tribal, claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.2.08 guntas of land in the agency area from a non-tribal by name Sri Vurlakanti Govindam. On the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, the Special Deputy Collector, Palvancha initiated proceedings suo motu and registered Case No.839/88/PNK. On issuance of notice, while the petitioner herein appeared before the Special Deputy Collector, Palvancha, the respondent-Sri Vadlakonda Mallaiah did not. The petitioner herein is stated to have deposed that the said land was purchased by him from the non-tribal petitioner therein in the year 1970, that the land was with him since then, that he has been paying land revenue and that the connected papers were not present with him. The Special Deputy Collector, Palvancha held that occupation of the suit land by non- tribals was contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, that the non-tribal petitioner did not furnish any evidence to prove his legal rights over the land and that it was evident that there was no evidence to prove his lawful ownership over the suit land. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(2)(b) of Regulation 1 of 1959, the petitioner herein was ordered to be ejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Agent to Government, Khammam, who in order to ascertain the correct position of the land under dispute, and to know the actual possession held over the land, called for the pahanies from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka. On verification of the pahanies, the Agent to Government found that the disputed land was located in Survey No.554/20 of Singareddipalli Village of Pinapaka Mandal, which fell under the schedule area and attracted the provisions of the Land Transfer Regulations. As per the entries recorded and available in pahani against the Survey No.554/20, Sri Vadlakonda Malligadu, S/o.Ramudu was found to be the pattedar for all the years from 1958- 59 to 1973-74 and his name also existed in the occupants’ column for the years 1958-59 to 1963-64. Further, the name of Sri Vurlakanti Govindam was also available in the occupants’ column for the years 1969-70 to 1972-73 with different ink and different handwritings. The Agent concluded that from the above entries it was evident that the name of the occupant Sri Vurlakanti Govindam, who sold away the land to the vendor of the petitioner, was recorded with different ink and different handwriting, was a subsequent development and was made with a malafide intention, and that it was proof that the records had been build up only to come up on the record. The Agent to Government took note of the submissions that the petitioner herein had purchased the disputed land in 1960 by way of sada sale agreement, had got it registered for a consideration of Rs.8,000/- bearing document No.216/77 dated 22.04.1977 in which it was indicated that the sale agreement took place much earlier to the registration of the disputed land. The Agent to Government also noted the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Kola Mahalaxmi v. Agent to Government[1], wherein it was held that the authorities under the Act did not have jurisdiction to pass orders in respect of transfers made prior to the coming into force of the Regulations, that even if the transfers were made under an un-registered sale deed the authorities under the Regulations did not have the power to go into the validity of such transfer, as it was a matter for consideration by a competent court in appropriate proceedings. The Agent to the Government further observed that it was clear from the entries in the village record i.e., pahani that against the disputed survey number the name of the petitioner herein did not exist in the records. He further observed that had the disputed land been in the actual possession of the petitioner his name would have been definietely recorded in the village pahani against the relevant survey number and that it was also clear from the registered document that it was made only after having knowledge that Land Transfer Regulation provisions came into existence and, in order to create documentary evidence in support of his claim, the sale deed was registered on 22.04.1977 as if the land was purchased in 1967 under an ordinary agreement but for legality the same was registered in 1977. The Agent to Government came to the conclusion that the contention that the purchase took place prior to 1977 was a created one in order to avoid and escape from the clutches of the Land Transfer Regulation provisions and, since the petitioner had failed to produce the original sale deed, the judgment of the Supreme Court was not applicable to this case. He further held that, according to the village basic records, the petitioner was not in possession of the suit schedule land during the crucial period of the regulation and that the petitioner had failed to produce the land revenue receipts in original. He rejected the contention that the Special Deputy Collector had not given an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case correctly and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Sri P.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that prior to amendment of the Act in 1999, an agreement of sale, did not require registration and as such it was not open to the authorities to dispute an agreement of sale having been entered into prior to the Land Transfer Regulation having come into force and the very fact that the registered sale deed, referred to the earlier agreement of sale, was proof that such an agreement of sale was in fact entered into. He places reliance on a judgment of this Court in Kalagara Vighneswararao v. Government of A.P[2], wherein this Court observed that prohibition of alienation was prospective and not retrospective, that it was only by virtue of the State amendment, by amendment Act 4 of 1999, that an agreement of sale relating to immovable property was made compulsorily registerable with effect from 01.04.1999 and, since the agreement of sale related to a period prior thereto i.e., 02.05.1969, there was no prohibition for transfer of lands based on such an agreement of sale. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that an agreement of sale did not necessitate registration prior to 01.04.1999. The judgment in Kalagara Vighneswararao (2 supra), is however, not applicable to the facts of the present case since the Agent to Government, Khammam, on a perusal of the revenue records, has recorded a finding that, while the ownership of the land was shown in the name of Sri Vadlakonda Malligadu, the name of the petitioner’s vendor Sri Vurlakanti Govindam was shown in the occupants’ column for the years 1969-70 to 1972-73 with different inks and different handwritings. The Agent to the Government came to the conclusion that the name of the occupant Sri Vurlakanti Govindam, who is alleged to have sold the land to the petitioner, was recorded with different ink and different handwriting and that it was a subsequent development only to come up on record. No material was placed before either of the authorities below to show that Sri Vurlakanti Govindam had purchased the said land from Sri Vadlakonda Malligadu. His name is only shown in the revenue record in the occupants’ column and not as a pattadar. Even that entry in the occupants’ column has been found by the Agent to the Government to be an interpolation. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that such a finding of fact by the Agent to the Government is perverse necessitating interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Tribunals/competent authorities exercising quasi judicial powers, except where such a finding of fact is perverse or is based on no evidence. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere, with the order passed by the Agent to Government, Khammam, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from availing any other remedies, which are available to him under law. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 14.11.2008 va [1] 1999 (6) ALT 174 [2] 2006 (2) ALD 683