*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR +WRIT PETITION NO.13236 OF 2001 %12-09-2008 #Yelagani Papaiah Son of Shankaraiah, Aged about 63 years, Agriculturist, H.No.1-49, Bakaram Jagir, Nazeebnagar, Moinabad Mandal, R.R. District. And Another … Petitioners Vs. $The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. And Others … Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioner: Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao ^ Counsel for respondents: The Govt. Pleader for Revenue for R-1 to R-3 Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, for R-4 to R-7 ? CASES REFERRED: 1) AIR 1978 AP 444 2) (2000) 7 SCC 522 3) AIR 2003 SC 3044 4) 2008 (4) ALD 658 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 13236 of 2001 Between: 1 Yelangani Papaiah S/o.Shankaraiah, R/o.H.No.1-49,Bakaram Jagir, Nazeebnagar, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District. 2 Yelangani Chandramma W/o.Papaiah, R/o.H.No.1-49,Bakaram Jagir, Nazeebnagar, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Shankarpally, R.R.District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevella,Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District. 4 Yelagani Laxminarayana S/o.Shankaraiah R/o.Najeeb Nagar Post, Moinabad (M) R.R.District. 5 Yelagani Ananta Swamy @ Dayanand S/o.Shankaraiah R/o.Najeeb Nagar Post, Moinabad (M) R.R.District. 6 Yelagani Kumara Swamy S/o.Shankaraiah R/o.Najeeb Nagar Post, Moinabad (M) R.R.District. 7 Yelagani Naga Mallesha S/o.Shankaraiah R/o.Najeeb Nagar Post, Moinabad (M) R.R.District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records vide Order No.D5/8031/1993, Dt.5-3-2001 of respondent No.1, examine the same and quash the same as illegal,arbitrary, and contrary to law and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the Circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13236 OF 2001 O R D E R The order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in proceedings No.D5/8031/1993 dated 05.03.2001 passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), is under challenge in the present writ petition. The facts of the case, as reﬂected in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, are that one Smt.Shetti Sharanamma was the pattadar of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.8.01 gunta in Najeeb Nagar Village of Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The father of the petitioner No.1 and respondents 4 to 7, namely late Sri Shankaraiah, is said to have been the Protected Tenant in respect of this land. Owing to the default committed by the pattadar, Smt.Shetti Sharanamma, in payment of arrears, the Tashildar, Chevella, put the land to auction under the Revenue Recovery Act and the petitioner No.1 participated in the said auction on 26.08.1967 and became the highest bidder. According to him, after he deposited the sale consideration, the then Tahsildar put him in possession of the property on the date of the auction. He claims to have made an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevella, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the third respondent in the writ petition, under the Act and in pursuance thereof, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, issued a validation certiﬁcate dated 14.11.1990 under Section 5-A of the Act, in Form 13(B) proforma with a Form 13(C) proforma appended thereto. It is stated that the respondent No.5 herein, being aggrieved by the issuance of the said proceedings, ﬁled a Revision Petition before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the ﬁrst respondent in the writ petition. It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 gifted an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas out of the subject land to his wife, petitioner No.2 herein and put her in possession. Meanwhile, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition were passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, setting aside the proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, which led to the filing of the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that they are in possession of the property even as on the date of ﬁling of the writ petition and the ﬁndings of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, are erroneous in law and on fact. The ﬁnding that the father of the petitioner No.1 and respondents 4 to 7 was the actual owner of the property in question and accordingly all his sons, viz., petitioner No.1 and respondents 4 to 7, would have an equal share therein, is attacked on the ground that the father was not in a position to purchase the land in the auction held in the year 1967. The factum of the father’s name being reﬂected in the revenue records is sought to be explained by stating that he was a Protected Tenant in respect of the said land and accordingly his name continued to be recorded in the said proceedings notwithstanding the events that transpired thereafter, including the purchase of the land by the petitioner No.1. Accordingly, the petitioners sought for a writ in the nature of a certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings dated 05.03.2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and to quash the same on the grounds of illegality and arbitrariness. The respondents 4 to 7 ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating to the eﬀect that the proceedings under challenge required no interference in this writ petition as there is no error of jurisdiction by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in passing the said proceedings. They denied the claim of the petitioner No.1 that he had purchased the lands in the auction and that he alone was in possession of the said lands. It is claimed that their father had participated in the auction and he was the purchaser of the lands in question. It is further stated that their father had purchased the lands in the name of the petitioner No.1 as he was the eldest son but the purchase was from joint family funds and petitioner No.1 did not have any independent source of income. It is further stated that petitioner No.1, taking advantage of this fact, ﬁled a petition under the Act before the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, with the intention of knocking away the entire joint family property depriving them of their rights. They also attacked the alleged gift made by the petitioner No.1 in favour of his wife, petitioner No.2, so far as the extent of Ac.2.00 guntas is concerned. They denied the averment made in the writ aﬃdavit that the petitioners were in exclusive possession of the subject lands. According to them, there is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the proceedings impugned in the writ petition and accordingly, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. It is relevant to note that the interim order dated 03.07.2001 granted by this Court, suspending the operation of the proceedings dated 05.03.2001 pending further orders, was modiﬁed upon the vacate petition ﬁled by the respondents 4 to 7 and by order dated 10.09.2001, this Court directed that status quo should be maintained with regard to the possession of the subject lands. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 7. Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that a reading of the proceedings dated 05.03.2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, would demonstrate that the same are unsustainable in law inasmuch as the authority exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 9 of the Act. He also drew the attention of this Court to the fact that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, placed reliance upon the reports of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer dated 27.09.1996 and 21.11.1996 which are said to have been submitted to the Collector and Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, respectively. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners were not furnished the copies of these reports and the failure in this regard clearly occasions prejudice to them and constitutes a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. He further stated that the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, have the eﬀect of deciding a title dispute, which is far in excess of the revisional jurisdiction, which he was exercising. Accordingly, he submitted that the said proceedings were unsustainable in law and were liable to be set aside. He placed reliance upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in KALARI NAGABHUSHANA RAO v. THE COLLECTOR, PANCHAYAT WING, GUNTUR AND OTHERS [1] wherein this Court held that the State Government, acting as an appellate authority under Section 50(4) of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, was not competent to call for reports from the subordinate oﬃcers in order to sustain the proceedings which were under appeal. The learned Division Bench also held that such action would be violative of the rules of natural justice, thereby vitiating the exercise of the appellate authority. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SHAMA PRASHANT RAJE v. GANPATRAO AND OTHERS [2] for the proposition that the High Court acting in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though not sitting in appeal over the ﬁndings recorded by the competent Tribunal, would be justiﬁed in interfering with such ﬁndings if the Court came to the conclusion that the inferior Tribunal had committed manifest error by misconstruing documents or if it had ignored relevant materials or taken into consideration extraneous materials. On the other hand, Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 7, contended that the petitioners sought to raise various disputed questions of fact in the present writ petition. In this regard he drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the case of the petitioners as reﬂected in the writ aﬃdavit, is based upon the alleged purchase of the lands by the petitioner No.1 in the auction sale said to have been conducted in the year 1967 whereas the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, dated 14.11.1990 reﬂect that the claim was based upon the sale document dated 25.04.1956. According to him, the failure of the petitioners to mention this sale document in their affidavit, though the same appears to have been the basis for the issuance of the proceedings dated 14.11.1990 by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, clearly indicates their lack of bona fides and he submits that in the light of these factual inconsistencies, it would not be open to this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case. He submitted that the proceedings dated 05.03.2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, do not suﬀer from any error apparent on the face of the record or any error of jurisdiction warranting the interference of this Court by exercising its certiorari jurisdiction. He placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SURYA DEV RAI v. RAM CHANDER RAI AND OTHERS[3]. In paragraph 38 of the said Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court summed up its conclusions with regard to the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction by the High Courts. As per the said Judgment, the writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction – by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in ﬂagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure speciﬁed, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further stated that the High Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. The learned counsel also relied upon the Judgment of this Court in A.SAROJAMMA AND ANOTHER v. A.PARVATH REDDY [4]. In the said case, basing upon a partition deed, the party sought validation under Section 5-A of the Act. This Court held that such a document does not eﬀect an alienation or a transfer so as to bring the transaction within the ambit of Section 5-A of the Act. It is the argument of the learned counsel that the alleged purchase by the petitioner No.1 in an auction sale stands on the same footing as a partition deed and therefore, dealing with his application under Section 5-A of the Act was inherently erroneous. He would, therefore, submit that the proceedings challenged in the writ petition do not warrant the invocation of the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly prays for dismissal of the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 supported the proceedings dated 05.03.2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. He submitted that the said proceedings were issued in pursuance of due and proper exercise of the revisional jurisdiction vested in the authority under Section 9 of the Act and accordingly no cause was made out for interfering with the same. The petitioner ﬁled additional material papers in this writ petition. The proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, on 14.11.1990 are placed before this Court in these material papers. A reading of the declaration in Form 13(B) proforma issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, would show that the petitioner No.1 is said to have made an application under Section 5-A of the Act seeking validation of the sale/allotment of the land. The appendix to the said proceedings in Form 13(C) proforma shows that the document relied upon by the petitioner No.1 is dated 25.04.1956. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, stated to the eﬀect that upon enquiry he learnt that petitioner No.1 had purchased the subject lands through the said unregistered document and exercising authority under Section 5-A of the Act, which had been introduced vide A.P. Act 1 of 1989, he collected the requisite payment and validated the alienation in favour of the petitioner No.1. A reading of the proceedings dated 05.03.2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, complicates the matter, however. These proceedings were passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act. As per these proceedings, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, perused the record available with the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, and found that the petitioner No.1 approached the revenue authorities seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records in the year 1988 stating that Smt.Shetti Sharanamma had executed a sale document in respect of the subject lands on 25.04.1956. However, as Smt.Shetti Sharanamma was found to be in default so far as the payment of arrears to the Government was concerned, the land in Survey Nos.25 and 41 is said to have been put to auction in the year 1967 and the petitioner No.1’s father is said to have purchased the lands once again. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, also stated to the eﬀect that he perused the original sale document dated 25.04.1956 and found that Smt.Shetti Sharanamma has sold the subject lands to the father of the petitioner No.1 and respondents 4 to 7, which is in variance with what the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer stated in his proceedings dated 14.11.1990. The enquiries said to have been conducted at various stages also do not reﬂect any cogent and consistent ﬁndings. The enquiries referred to by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in his proceedings dated 05.03.2001 speak to the eﬀect that the father of the petitioner No.1 was the owner and possessor of the subject lands whereas the enquiry of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, as reﬂected in his proceedings dated 14.11.1990 indicated a diﬀerent ﬁnding altogether. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 that the application ought not to have been treated as one under Section 5-A of the Act as it pertained to an auction transaction may not be correct. It is to be noted that the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated 05.03.2001 reﬂect that the application before the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, was based not only upon the alleged auction purchase by the petitioner No.1 in the year 1967 but also the sale document dated 25.04.1956. It is to be noted that there is one other inconsistency with regard to the source of the claim. Under the auction sale, the purchase was only with reference to the lands in Survey Nos.25 and 41 while the sale document dated 25.04.1956 appears to cover the entire extent of Ac.8.01 gunta in Survey Nos.25, 37, 38 and 41 of Najeeb Nagar Village. This would therefore be a crucial factor in deciding the extent of the purported validation under Section 5-A of the Act. If the claim of the petitioner No.1 was based on the sale document of 1956, his claim would be over the entire extent whereas if it is based on the alleged auction sale in his favour, it would be limited to the lands in Survey Nos.25 and 41 of Najeeb Nagar Village. Be that as it may, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction in a writ petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari would not convert itself into a Court of Appeal, as pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in SURYA DEV RAI’s case (3 supra). The scope of judicial review in such a matter would be limited to the assessment of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Authority/Tribunal. The Judgments in KALARI NAGABHUSHANA RAO’s case, SHAMA PRASHANT RAJE’s case and A.SAROJAMMA’s case may not have much bearing on the present case, which essentially turns upon the exercise of jurisdiction by the revisional authority. In the present case, the proceeding dated 14.11.1990 of the primary authority-the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella, was passed in exercise of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. Section 5-A of the Act reads as follows: “5-A. Regularisation of certain alienations or other transfers of lands: - (1) 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. (2) On receipt of such application, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer shall after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the oﬃce of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been eﬀected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 as ﬁxed by the Registering Oﬃcer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer on the basis of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer shall not require the alienee or the transferee to deposit the amount under this sub-section unless he is satisﬁed that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) xxx xxx xxx ” Under the said Section, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer is empowered to validate an alienation or transfer made or eﬀected otherwise than by way of a registered document provided the alienee or transferee is in occupation by virtue of the said alienation or transfer and applies to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer for a certiﬁcate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid. This is the import of the sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of the Act. Under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed, shall require the alienee or transferee to deposit the amount equal to the registration fee and stamp duty that would be payable, had the alienation or transfer been eﬀected by way of registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.The other sub-sections of Section 5-A are not relevant for the purpose of this case. In the present case, the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer dated 14.11.1990 reﬂect that he undertook an enquiry and thereafter collected the requisite amount due from the petitioner No.1, as is required under Section 5-A(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, respondent No.5 ﬁled a Revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, invoking the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act reads as follows: “9. Revision: - The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer or Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modiﬁed, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely aﬀecting any person shall be passed under this section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation.” Under the above Section, the Collector, either suo motu or upon an application, can modify, annul, reverse or remit for re- consideration any order passed by the Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer or Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B of the Act. It is in exercise of this revisional jurisdiction that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, has passed the proceedings dated 05.03.2001, which is under challenge in this writ petition. The narration of the case hereinabove would clearly demonstrate that any number of disputed questions of fact are thrown up and there is no consistency or cogency in the ﬁndings arrived at in the so- called enquiries conducted at diﬀerent stages. According to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the original sale document dated 25.04.1956 reﬂects the name of the father of the petitioner No.1 and not the name of the petitioner No.1 as is reﬂected in the proceedings dated 14.11.1990 of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chevella. The contention of the petitioner in this case is that the said proceeding is bad in law inasmuch as the Joint Collector relied upon the reports which had been collected behind the back of the petitioners and the denial of an opportunity to them in this regard constitutes violation of the principles of natural justice. It may not be necessary to go into this aspect of the matter in the light of what I have to say hereunder with regard to the scope of exercise of jurisdiction by the revisional authority. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy