IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 23313 of 2004 Between: S. Bhupal Reddy, S/o. Param Reddy, 2-4-118, Upparpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. 2. Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. Darga Chinna Jangaiah, (Died per LRs) 4. D. Panchamma, W/o. Late D. Chinna Jangaiah, R/o. 2-2-127/1, Upparpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District. 5. D. Bikshapati, S/o. Late D. Chinna Jangaiah, R/o. 2-2-127/1, Upparpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District. 6. D. Swamy Das, S/o. Late D. Chinna Jangaiah, R/o. 2-2-127/1, Upparpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District. 7. D. Santoshamma, S/o. Late D. Chinna Jangaiah, R/o. 2-2-127/1, Upparpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District. 8. Manorama, S/o. Late D. Chinna Jangaiah, R/o. 2-2-127/1, Upparpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District. 9. D. Ashok, S/o. Late D. Chinna Jangaiah, R/o. 2-2-127/1, Upparpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the order of the 1st respondent in Caste No. D5/7632/97 dated 23-11-2004 and grant such other relief Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 23.11.2004, passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. According to the petitioner, in the year 1984-85, he purchased the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 each in Sy.Nos.25 and 26 situated at Upperpally village in Ranjendranagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, vide unregistered sale deed executed by one D.Pedda Jangaiah and D.Chinna Jangaiah, and got the said sale deed validated under Section 42 of the Indian Stamp Act by the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, vide endorsement No.2020/GLI/97, dated 28.04.1997, and since the date of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner further submits that, on 03.05.1997, he applied to the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for granting mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the subject land and, accordingly, the 2nd respondent, after issuing notices and after conducting necessary enquiry, by order dated 07.07.1997 has sanctioned mutation in his favour. Subsequently, in the year 2000, he obtained a house plot layout in respect of the subject land from Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, converting the subject land into residential house plots, and sold the said house plots to various persons. While so, against the order of the 2nd respondent sanctioning mutation in favour of the petitioner, the unofficial respondents herein and others, claiming to be the legal representatives of D.Pedda Jangaiah and D.Chinna Jangaiah who executed the unregistered sale deed in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner and alleging that they are the owners and possessors of the subject land, have filed a revision petition under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 before the 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that, during the pendency of the revision petition, the revision petitioners/legal representatives of D.Pedda Jangaiah and D.Chinna Jangaiah have entered into compromise with him on 20.01.2004 and, therefore, they did not pursue the revision petition. However, the 1st respondent, by the impugned order dated 23.11.2004, has set aside the order, dated 07.07.1997, passed by the 2nd respondent and directed the 2nd respondent to restore the entries existed before passing the order dated 07.07.1997, holding that the Mandal Revenue Authority/Recording Authority is not empowered to pass orders of mutation based on unregistered purchase simply on a certificate issued under Section 42 of the Stamp Act by the District Registrar treating it as registered sale deed, that a decree or order passed by a Court or authority without jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity could be setup whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings, and in that regard, a reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan (AIR 1954 SC 340). The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order without considering the matter in right perspective. Hence, this writ petition. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that under Section 4 of A.P. Record of Rights Act, 1971, the Mandal Revenue Officer is the proper authority to grant mutation in the revenue records, and therefore, it cannot be said that the Mandal Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to grant mutation orders. He further submits that the judgment referred to by the 1st respondent has no application to the facts of the present case. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order. As can be seen from the record, the petitioner though purchased the subject land vide unregistered sale deed, later on he got the said sale deed validated under Section 42 of the Indian Stamp Act by the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy. As per Section 4 of A.P. Record of Rights Act, 1971, the Mandal Revenue Officer is the proper authority to grant mutation in the revenue records, therefore, the finding of the 1st respondent that the Mandal Revenue Authority/Recording Authority is not empowered to pass orders of mutation is not sustainable. Further, it is to be noticed from a perusal of the impugned order itself that before passing the mutation orders, the 2nd respondent followed due process of law, such as issuance of notification intimating that the petitioner has purchased the subject land through registered document No.2020/1997, issuance of notice by way of substituted service of notice, calling for objections and fixing a date for conducting enquiry. Thus, it is apparent that in spite of substituted service of notice issued by the 2nd respondent, the unofficial respondents herein and the other revision petitioners did not appear with any objections before the 2nd respondent at the time of sanctioning mutation orders in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the 2nd respondent is not proper. Be that as it may, the impugned order shows that when the revision petition was posted for hearing, the counsel for the unofficial respondents herein did not appear before the 1st respondent. Even before this Court, when notices were not served, substituted service of notice was directed to be taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo dated 18.03.2009 to show that the substituted service of notice was published in Andhra Jyothi Daily Newspaper, Ranga Reddy District Edition, on 18.03.2009 itself. In spite of that, the unofficial respondents did not choose to represent their case. Hence, an inference can be drawn that the unofficial respondents have entered into compromise with the petitioner, as contended by the petitioner and, as such, they avoided pursuing the revision petition filed by them, but, the 1st respondent, without considering the same, passed the impugned order. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order, dated 23.11.2004, passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside and the same is, therefore, set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 03.07.2009 v v