THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19755 of 2002 Dated:30.09.2010 Between: Peyyala Gollaiah. ….Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19755 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in threatening to dispossess him from the land admeasuring Acs.1.95 cents in survey No.42/3 and Ac.0.46 cents in survey No.42/5 situated at Ganti Pedapudi Village of P.Gannavaram Mandal in East Godavari District (hereafter called, the petition schedule land), as illegal and arbitrary, and a for a consequential direction to take possession of the surplus land in the possession of the third respondent. The third respondent filed a declaration in respect of agricultural holding including petition schedule land under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act). She was declared as the surplus landholder. The petitioner’s case is that his wife who was a teacher purchased the land from the third respondent in 1979 under an oral agreement in respect of which the third respondent executed a registered sale deed on 21.07.1984. The third respondent allegedly took such a plea in her land reforms appeal, being L.R.A.No.1098 of 1978. Be that as it is, the petitioner allegedly succeeded to the property and is allegedly in possession from 1979. On 18.09.2002 the second respondent put up a notice in Form VIII near the land proposing to take possession. The petitioner objected on 30.09.2002 by filing a petition before the first respondent. Even while the same is pending, on 04.10.2002 the Mandal Revenue Inspector attempted to survey and subdivision of the petition schedule land. The petitioner was threatened with dispossession. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit with the following averments. Sri Gurram Prakasa Rao filed a declaration under Section 8(1) of the Act on his behalf and on behalf of his family members. By an order dated 30.11.1990 in L.C.C.575/APM/75&250/KTP/75, the first respondent declared Sri Gurram Prakasa Rao as surplus landholder to an extent of 0.3692 standard holdings. The lands surrendered were identified and Form VIII notice was published in the Village proposing to take possession of the land in survey No.42/3 (Acs.2.95 cents) and survey No.42/5 (Ac.0.46 cents). The Mandal Surveyor was deputed to inspect the land and prepare the subdivision record. The petitioner then filed objections on 03.10.2002 alleging that he purchased the petition schedule land from the third respondent, who is the wife of the declarant Sri Gurram Prakasa Rao under registered sale deed dated 01.07.1984. Then he filed the present writ petition ad obtained orders o f status quo in W.P.M.P.No.24802 of 2002 on 08.10.2002. The objection petition filed by the petitioner deserves no consideration as the sale transaction under which the petitioner claims the land is null and void under Section 17(1) of the Act. The counter affidavit further states that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to show that he has been in possession of the land. The allegation that the third respondent obtained favourable orders in L.R.A.No.1098 of 1978 is not true and no such record is traced in the Office files. However, as per the orders dated 17.09.1980, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (LRAT) remanded the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT). Pursuant thereto, on 30.11.1990 the LRT passed orders including the petition schedule land in the holding of the declarant. The said order has become final. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the LRAT accepted the petitioner’s plea based on the sale deed, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the land. The submission is misconceived. Indisputably, the petitioner’s wife purchased the land under an agreement of sale in 1979 and obtained registered sale deed dated 21.07.1984. The Act came into force with effect from 01.01.1975 and, therefore, by reason of Section 17 of the Act such sales are void. Section 17(1) of the Act prohibits any person holding land in excess of ceiling area as on 24.01.1971 from alienating his holding or any part thereof by way of sale, lease, gift exchange, settlement, surrender, usufructuary mortgage or otherwise until such person has furnished a declaration under Section 8 of the Act and the extent of the land to be surrendered in respect of his holding has been determined by the Land Reforms Tribunal. Any such sale by the third respondent is null and void and no right can accrue thereunder. When the right claimed for the purpose of the writ petition is based on a void document, the Court cannot enforce such right. In exercise of mandamus jurisdiction, the High Court can issue proper direction only to enforce a legal valid right and not a right under void transaction. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.09.2010 vs