THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 9167 of 2006 Dated: 31-03-2011 Between: C.Malla Reddy …Petitioner and State of A.P., rep. by Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy and others …Respondents. Order: Assumption and exercise of jurisdiction by the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector, purportedly in exercise of the powers under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the 1971 Act’) has given rise to this writ petition. The writ petition is filed seeking invalidation of the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 29-3-2005 and 30-1-2006 in Case Nos. F3/9579/1999-F3/1/ROR/2000 and F3/8255/1999-F3/30/ROR/2000 respectively; the order of the 3rd respondent dated “June, 1999” in File No. A3/5308/1999; and for a declaration that XIII (B) certificate dated 14-3-1991 issued by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner is valid. The petitioner claims to have purchased different extents of land in Sy.Nos. 562/1, 563 and 564 of Mamidipally village in Medak District from one Manikya Reddy under an unregistered and unstamped (white paper) deed in 1974. In 1989 he applied to the 4th respondent for validation of the said instrument under Section 5A of the 1971 Act. The petitioner sought validation of the unregistered and unstamped documents for Ac.6-00 in Sy.No.564, Ac.10-23 guntas in Sy.No.563 and Ac.5-24 guntas in Sy.No.562/1. On 14-3-1991, the 4th respondent issued a certificate in Form XIII (B) certifying that after due enquiry as prescribed by law, the petitioner was found to be the purchaser of the land under an unregistered document in respect of the aforementioned lands from Manikya Reddy and that after deposit of the requisite stamp duty and registration fee payable, the alienation/transfer in favour of the petitioner of the aforestated extents of lands in Sy.Nos.562/1, 563 and 564 of Mamidipally village is valid. As per the copy of the order of the 3rd respondent available on record in this writ petition, by an undated order described as having been passed on –06-1999, bearing proceedings No. A3/5308/1999, the 3rd respondent entertained an appeal by the President of the Mosque of Mamidipally village. It is not clear whether the person claiming to be the President was so appointed under any provision of the Wakf Act; whether the land claimed to belong to the Mosque is wakf property; whether it is a private mosque outside the legal architecture of the Wakf Act; or even whether the self-styled President was authorised to represent the Mosque. The 3rd respondent by the above order, after notice to the petitioner, considered the claim of the “President of the Mosque” that the land in question in an extent of Ac.6-19 guntas in Sy.No.564 of Mamidipally village belongs to the muslim graveyard; that Manikya Reddy had no title whatsoever to convey to the petitioner; that the order of validation dated 14-3-1991 passed by the 4th respondent was unsustainable; and declared that the XIII (B) certificate issued by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner, is illegal. The 3rd respondent set aside the order dated 14-3-1991 passed by the 4th respondent and directed the 4th respondent to correct the entries in the pahanies since 1991 in favour of the Mosque. Against the above orders of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner two sets of revisions were filed under Section 9 of the 1971 Act -- one was preferred by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent and another by third parties claiming to be the legal heirs of one Raja Shivaraj Bahadur who was asserted to be the original pattadar of the property, of an extent of Ac.6-19 guntas in Sy.No.564 of Mamidipally. The 2nd respondent in the first instance took up the revision preferred by the 5th respondent herein and four others claiming to be the legal heirs of late Raja Shivaraj Bahadur who was claimed to be the original pattadar of the land in Sy.No.564 of Mamidipally. By an order dated 29-3-2005 the 2nd respondent after issuing notice to the petitioner and the 6th respondent herein (the President of the Mosque committee) held as follows: (a) respondent Nos.5 and 7 to 10 (herein) claim to have survived and are the legal heirs of late Raja Shivaraj Bahadur who was recorded as the pattadar in respect of an extent of Ac.6-19 guntas in Sy.No.564 of Mamidipally village; (b) an extent of 0-30 guntas of this land is under utilisation by the Muslims of the locality as a graveyard; (c) as the persons claiming to be the legal heirs of late Raja Shivaraj Bahadur were not resident of Mamidipally village, the 2nd respondent had directed the 3rd respondent to advise the applicants to submit a legal heir certificate from a competent civil court for enabling “transfer” of the land in their favour; (d) subsequently, the 7th respondent (herein), through his petition dated 24-9-1999 had submitted a legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Charminar on 11-12-1998; and (e) according to a report of the 4th respondent, the occupation by the Muslim graveyard of an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas in Sy.No.564 is an old occupation, though there is no Mosque in the property and therefore excluding the extent of Ac.0-30 guntas the remaining land of Ac.5-29 guntas vests with the legal heirs of late Raja Shivaraj Bahadur and the petitioner (herein-respondent No.2 before the 2nd respondent herein) has no right in the said land. Surprisingly, the 2nd respondent did not discuss or deal with the claim of the petitioner as to lawful title in his favour on the basis of the 1974 white paper sale deed (alienating lands in Sy.No.562/1, 563 and 564 of Mamidipally village) executed by his vendor Manikya Reddy. The 2nd respondent also did not advert to the aspect whether Manikya Reddy had any alienable title to the property, which could be legitimised or confer title in favour of the petitioner by validation of the white paper sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by Manikya Reddy, purportedly in 1974. The 2nd respondent did not also address to the issue how Manikya Reddy derived title to the specified properties in Mamidipally village whether under an instrument; by succession; inheritance; certification; or otherwise. The 2nd respondent merely proceeded on the assumption that since Raja Shivaraj Bahadur was the original pattadar, (according to the 2nd respondent’s report) and the applicants before him were the legal heirs of Raja Shivaraj Bahadur qua the legal heir certificate (issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Charminar dated 11-12-1998), these legal heirs were entitled to be treated as successors to the estate of Raja Shivaraj Bahadur and the revenue records should reflect this fact. As a consequence of the 2nd respondent’s order dated 29-3-2005, the title (as declared by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the 1971 Act) in respect of an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas in Sy.No.564 is yet in a state of flux. The claim of title to the extent of Ac.0-30 guntas, the asserted legal heirs of Raja Shivaraj Bahadur was not decided in the revision by the 2nd respondent nor did this respondent decide whether this extent Ac.0-30 guntas belongs to the “President of the Mosque” (whatever be the legal or jurisprudential character of that entity); nor even whether the property belongs to a wakf and if so by what process or substantive provision known to law. In this writ petition the petitioner essentially seeks resuscitation of the 4th respondent’s order dated 14-3-1991 conferring validity of the 1974 alienation made in his favour by an unstamped, unregistered instrument executed by Manikya Reddy; challenges the orders of the 3rd and 2nd respondent dated 24-6-1999 and 29-3-2005 respectively. He assails the order of the 2nd respondent on the ground that the legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Charminar in favour of persons claiming to be the legal heirs of late Raja Shivaraj Bahadur is incompetent; that it is not clear from the revenue records whether late Raja Shivaraj Bahadur was a Jagirdar and the property in question a Jagir or whether the land in Sy.No.564 of Mamidipally is inam land. The petitioner also contends for the first time (a contention never urged before any of the authorities below), that since Jagirs as well as inams were abolished, the lands vested in the State and pattadari rights were conferred on persons who were in possession of lands, under the Rules regulating the grant of Pattedari Rights in non- kalsa Villages. Even this plea is ambiguous and vague. It is not pleaded that either Manikya Reddy or Manikya Reddy’s predecessor in title was an occupant of the lands which were part of an abolished inam and was either formally declared so or was entitled grant of an occupancy rights certificate or any other instrument legitimising his de facto occupation ripening into a de jure entitlement to the property in question. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Srinivas, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4, Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and Sri R.Raghunandan, learned counsel for respondents 7 to 10, this court is of the considered view that neither the initial order of the 4th respondent dated 14-3-1991 validating the sale in favour of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.562/1, 563 and 564 by Manikya Reddy, qua a white paper (unstamped, unregistered) instrument of 1974; the appellate order of the 3rd respondent dated 24-6-1999 nor the revisional order of the 2nd respondent dated 29-3-2005, in so far as these pertain to the land in Sy.No.564, are valid or sustainable. In view of the findings of the 2nd respondent in the revision (though the findings are not recorded after due notice and opportunity to the parties concerned, of the reports received by the 2nd respondent from the Revenue Divisional Officer with regard to the nature of the land in question), there arise a raft of complex disputes of fact; as to the antecedent character of the land in these survey numbers, in particular Sy.No.564 of Mamidipally village; as to whether the lands were Jigir or inam lands; whether respondents 5 and 7 to 10 herein are the legal heirs of late Raja Shivaraj Bahadur; whether late Raja Shivaraj Bahadur had initial or earlier title to these lands as a Jagirdar or Inamdar; as to how the lands were dealt with after Jagir and inams abolition; whether the lands vested in the State or any rights were granted to inamdars or occupants; whether the title of Manikya Reddy, the vendor of the petitioner to these lands, was on the basis of an instrument, certificate, succession or inheritance; whether if the claim to title by Manikya Reddy to these lands was on the basis of an unregistered and unstamped instrument, Manikya Reddy could convey title by alienation in favour of the petitioner (though such alienation initially invalid could be validated under the provisions of the 1971 Act); whether if Manikya Reddy claims title to the land under a registered or unregistered instrument, his vendors had title to the property; or whether Manikya Reddy had perfected title to the property by adverse possession or otherwise. These complex questions of fact involve examination of a variety of claims and consideration of several legislations and several documents; an exercise beyond the jurisdiction or authority of the authorities under the provisions of the 1971 Act. The provisions of the 1971 Act, in Section 5A in particular, confer on the Mandal Revenue Officer a simplistic jurisdiction to validate an unregistered and unstamped instrument, on an assumption that there could be competing claims of title to the property involved by the vendee and the vendor. When wider competing claims to the title to a property are presented for adjudication, such disputes are normatively beyond the jurisdiction of the Mandal Revenue Officer and therefore of the appellate and revisional authorities under the 1971 Act as well. Since the scope and contours of the revisional jurisdiction is qua the primary jurisdiction, this Court is unable to hold that the jurisdiction of the Mandal Revenue Officer or the appellate and revisional authorities under the 1971 Act extends beyond a simplistic exercise of recording validation in an uncontested situation, since to hold otherwise would be to interpret the provisions of the 1971 Act as conferring on a revenue official of a modest level in the hierarchy, inadequately trained in law and legal procedure to engage in complex adjudicatory functions. On the aforesaid analysis and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case which disclose complex competing claims involving several factual disputes, between the non-official parties herein-the petitioner and respondents 5 to 10, the resolution of disputes as to competing claims to the lands in Mamidipally, this Court is of the considered view that adjudication of such competing claims and issues are beyond the purview of the provisions of the 1971 Act. Accordingly the order dated 14-3-1991 of the 4th respondent; the order dated 24-6-1999 of the 3rd respondent; the order dated 29-3-2005 of the 2nd respondent; and the consequent order dated 30-1-2006 of the 2nd respondent, rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the 3rd respondent, are set aside. Having regard to the complex questions of fact and law arising for resolution, in the light of the competing claims of the non- official parties herein, this Court holds that these disputes are more appropriately adjudicated before a civil court of competent jurisdiction by way of a declaratory and consequent relief. The petitioner and/or respondents 5 to 10 herein, desirous of determination of their claim and resolution of the disputes arising therefrom are however at liberty to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction. None of the observations recorded by respondents 2 to 4 nor by this Court in these proceedings shall be construed (by the appropriate Court considering a suit or petition by the petitioner or respondents 5 to 10 herein), as an expression on the merits of claims of any party and the appropriate Court/Tribunal shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claims presented, in accordance with the pleadings and evidence on record before it. The writ petition is disposed of as above. But, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 31st March, 2011. GRR