IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3694 of 2008 Between: K Devadas …Petitioner And: Mohd. Abdul Mujeeb Khan & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3694 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.08.2008 in Case No.D1/64/2008 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, wherein the said revision petition filed by the petitioner herein under section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act 1971 (for short ‘the ROR Act’), was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. According to the petitioner, his father Achaiah purchased agricultural land measuring Ac.4.24 guntas in Sy.Nos.41, 50 and 70 of Budvel village of Ranga Reddy district from Gajji Venkaiah and Chandraiah under unregistered sale deed dated 17.04.1975. The said Chandraiah and Venkaiah purchased the said land under two un-registered sale deeds from Mohd. Abdul Kareemkahn and Mohd. Abdul Majeedkhan. Mujeebkhan sold Ac.4.24 guntas under unregistered sale deed dated 27.11.1963 and his brother Kareemkahan confirmed the said sale by taking balance sale consideration in favour of Gajji Venkataiah and executed unregistered sale deed on 16.03.1965. According to the petitioner, Kareemkhan and Mujeebkhan were never in possession and after purchase of the land, his father Achaiah has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner made an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for mutation under Section 5-A of the ROR Act vide file No.B/2824/98. The Mandal Revenue Officer issued proceedings on 21.7.2001 for mutation of the petitioner’s name. On payment of required registration charges by the petitioner, the unregistered sale deed dated 17.04.1975 was regularized and ever since the name of the petitioner is entered in the revenue records including in the pahanies as pattadar. It is further averred by the petitioner that he received a notice from the Mandal Revenue Office in File No.D/665/07 initiated on the application filed by the respondents and the petitioner appeared before the Mandal Revenue Officer and came to know that earlier the respondents filed another petition before Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella in File No.C/3666/07 alleging that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of the subject land and the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders remanding the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer to conduct denovo enquiry and also directed deletion of the name of the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, the respondents gave representation in File No.B/665/2007 and the Mandal Revenue Officer allowed the said petition by order dated 12.10.2007 deleting the name of the petitioner from the phananis, ignoring the proceedings already passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in file No.B/2824/07 dated 21.07.2001 in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the earlier order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in File No.B/2824/98 has not been challenged before any appellate authority by the respondents or their predecessors Mujeebkhan and Kareemkhan. Aggrieved by the orders dated 12.10.2007 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer deleting the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, petitioner preferred revision case in File No.D1/665/2007 before the Joint Collector. By order dated 12.08.2008 the learned Joint Collector dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the order dated 21.07.2001 in File No.B/2824/98 on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendernagar Mandal, regularizing the unregistered sale deed dated 17.04.1975 under Section 5-A of the ROR Act in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner herein was never challenged by way of any appeal and the said order has become final and therefore, the subsequent deletion of the name of the petitioner and restoring the name of the father of the first respondent-Abdul Karemkhan is unsustainable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would contend that the document dated 27.11.1963 under which the petitioner’s father Achaiah claims to have purchased was only an agreement of sale, but not any unregistered sale deed and the said document was not validated in the earlier order dated 27.01.2001 passed under section 5-A of the ROR Act by the Mandal Revenue Officer and since the name of the first respondent’s father was found to have been wrongly deleted and in his place, the name of the petitioner was found to have been illegally incorporated, the same was directed to be rectified by deleting the name of the petitioner and restoring the name of the first respondent’s father in the revenue records by the Mandal Revenue Officer by order dated 12.10.2007, was confirmed by the Joint Collector in the impugned order dated 12.08.2008. 6. The disputed land is an extent of Ac.1.12 guntas in Sy.No.49, Ac.1.5 guntas in Sy.No.50, Ac.2.7 guntas in Sy.No.70, total Ac.4.24 guntas of Budvel village, Rajendernagar Mandal. According to the petitioner herein, the subject land was purchased by Gajji Venkataiah and Chandraiah from Abdul Kareemkhan and Mohd. Abdul Mujeeb Khan, who are sons of Mohd. Lateef Khan, under two un-registered sale deeds dated 27.11.1963 and 16.03.1965. After demise of the original pattadar Lateef Khan, his elder son Abdul Karem Khan was recorded as pattadar. As seen from the order dated 12.10.2007 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the name of Lateef Khan was noted in the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 and the name of his son Kareemkhan was noted in the subsequent pahanies from 1960-61, 1970-71, 1980-81, 1989- 90, 1990-91, 1992-93 to 1997-98. According to the petitioner, his father Achaiah purchased the subject land from Gajji Venkaiah and Chandraiah under un-registered sale deed dated 17.04.1975 and the petitioner claims that ever since his father has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land for more than 30 years and his name was also recorded in the pahanies. The petitioner filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, vide File No.B/2824/98 under Section 5-A of the ROR Act seeking regularization of the unregistered sale deed dated 17.04.1975. As seen from the order dated 21.07.2001, the said application was contested by Abdul Waheed Khan, G Ramesh and others. After enquiry, the then Mandal Revenue Officer by the said orders dated 21.07.2001 directed that the un-registered sale deed dated 17.04.1975 be regularized under Section 5-A of the ROR Act in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner herein. 7. It is not disputed that the said order dated 21.07.2001 directing regularization of the unregistered sale deed dated 17.04.1975 has not been challenged by any one including the respondents herein. In fact, the impugned order passed by the learned Joint Collector also notes the fact that ‘on perusal of the record it is found that against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer Vide File No.B/2824/98 dated 21.07.2001, no one has filed any appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer’. Under sub section (4) of Section 5-A of the ROR Act, which was introduced by way of amendment with effect from 01.10.1993, provides an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer against the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. No such appeal under Section 5-B of the ROR Act has been filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, challenging the order dated 21.07.2001 of the Mandal Revenue Officer in File No.B/2824/98, as noted by the learned Joint Collector in the impugned order. However, subsequently, the respondents herein filed an application before the Revenue Divisional officer, vide Case No.C/3666/07 seeking deletion of the name of the petitioner herein as pattadar and restoration of the name of the first respondent’s father Kareemkhan alleging that the name of Kareemkhan was illegally deleted and the name of the petitioner Devadas was wrongly entered. The Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 15.05.2007 allowed the said appeal holding that the deletion of the name of the first respondent’s father Kareemkahn in patta column No.2 of the pahani from the year 2000-2001 is illegal and without any lawful order passed by the competent revenue authority and therefore, directed restoration of the name of the first respondent’s father Kareemkhan. The Revenue Divisional Officer further directed that the illegal entries made in the revenue records from the year 2000- 2001 onwards are set aside and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendernagar was directed to conduct denovo enquiry and pass appropriate orders. 8. It is to be noted that the order dated 15.05.2007 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in Case No.C/3666/2007 does not make any reference to the earlier order dated 21.07.2001 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in File No.B/2824/98, where under un-registered sale deed dated 17.04.1975 was regularized under section 5-A of the ROR Act. The order dated 15.05.2007 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, does not show that it was passed in an appeal filed by the respondents herein against the order dated 21.07.2001. In fact, the limitation prescribed for filing any appeal under Section 5-B of the ROR Act against the orders passed under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A is only 30 days. The order dated 15.05.2007 came to be passed in Case No.C/3666/07 on a separate application filed by the respondents herein, though reference is made to section 5-B of the ROR Act in the preamble of the order. As seen from the said order dated 15.05.2007, the entries in the pahanies deleting the name of Kareem Khan and noting the name of the petitioner herein- Devadas were challenged and the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the orders setting aside the entry standing in the name of the petitioner and restoring the entry in the name of Kareemkhan on the ground that the pahani for the year 2000-2001 does not disclose the proceedings under which the petitioner herein- Devadas was incorporated in the patta column and therefore, removal of the name of Kareemkhan is without any basis. While setting aside the entries in the name of Devadas and restoring the entries in the name of Karemkhan, the Revenue Divisional Officer also directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to conduct denovo enquiry and pass appropriate orders. 9. The Mandal Revenue Officer by order dated 12.10.2007 in File No.D/665/2007 accepted the claim of the respondents herein and directed to record the name of Kareemkhan in the pattadar column of pahani from the year 2000-2001 onwards by deleting the name of Devadas. In the said order, the Mandal Revenue Officer went into the question of regularizing the document dated 17.04.1975 under the orders dated 21.07.2001 by then Mandal Revenue Officer and observed that ‘a perusal of the file bearing No.B/2824/98 reveals that no proper enquiry was conducted about the genuineness, fairness and validity of the above said unregistered document’. He further observed that ‘the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajender Nagar, should have examined the authority of the executants of the above said unregistered document and had this aspect been examined, the appeal could not have been filed’. Thus, the Mandal Revenue Officer by his order dated 12.10.2007 sought to reopen the issue of regularization of the un-registered sale deed dated 17.04.1975 relied upon by the petitioner herein, though the said regularization effected under the orders dated 21.07.2001 is said to have attained finality. In the order dated 12.10.1007, the Mandal Revenue Officer has interpreted the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer in case No.C/3666/07 dated 15.05.2007 as having effect of setting aside the order dated 21.07.2001 of the Mandal Revenue Officer in file No.B/2828/98. In the order dated 15.05.2007 the Revenue Divisional Officer observed that ‘the pahani for the year 2000-2001 did not disclose the proceedings under which the name of Devadas was incorporated in the pattadar column of the pahani and so, removal of the name of Kareemkhan is without any basis’. The Mandal Revenue Officer in his order dated 12.10.2007 however observed that ‘as verified from the records it was found that the name of Devadas was recorded consequent on the orders passed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer vide proceedings in Form XIII-B and XIII-C dated 09.08.2001 duly regularizing unregistered documents under section 5-A of the ROR Act’. The Mandal Revenue Officer, however proceeded to further hold that with the orders of the appellate authority dated 15.05.2007 for deletion of the name of Devadas, the earlier orders dated 21.07.2001 of the Mandal Revenue Officer also gets set aside. The order dated 15.05.2007 of the Revenue Divisional Officer does not show that it was passed in the appeal against the order dated 21.07.2001 of the Mandal Revenue Officer and in fact, there is no reference to the said earlier orders at all in the order dated 15.05.2007. The said order dated 15.05.2007 does not also reveal that the regularization of the un-registered sale deed dated 17.04.1975 as effected under the orders dated 21.07.2001 was challenged and the said regularization was also set aside. However, the Mandal Revenue Officer in his order dated 12.10.2007 gives an interpretation to the effect that the order dated 15.05.2007 passed by the Revenue Divisional officer has the effect of setting aside the order dated 21.07.2001 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. 10. In the impugned order, the learned Joint Collector while observing that no appeal was preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the order dated 21.07.2001 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, did not consider as to the validity or otherwise of the approach made by the Mandal Revenue Officer in construing the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer as setting aside the order dated 21.07.2001 of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The learned Joint Collector did not also consider the question as to whether the earlier order dated 21.07.2001 directing regularization of the un-registered sale deed dated 17.04.1975 continues to be in force and whether or not the said order attained finality and in the event of said order attaining finality, the question as to whether or not mere challenge to the entries in the revenue records is sustainable. The learned Joint Collector also did not consider as to whether or not the Mandal Revenue Officer by order dated 12.10.2007 was justified in reopening the issue of regularization of the un-registered sale deed dated 17.04.1975, though the said order dated 21.07.2001 was not appealed against by any one as noted by the learned Joint Collector. The learned Joint Collector after recording the averments and contentions of both sides in detail, did not however, advert to them and disposed of the revision petition by cryptic order observing that as seen from the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 15.05.2007 and the Mandal Revenue Officer, it is evident that the deletion of the name of Mohd. Abdul Mujeeb Khan-first respondent i.e., son of Kareem khan is illegal as the same is without any proceedings issued by the competent authority and therefore, he does not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Tahsildar dated 12.10.2007. The impugned order of the learned Joint Collector does not answer the contention of the petitioner herein that the regularization of the un-registered sale deed under Section 5-A of the ROR Act by order dated 21.07.2001 has attained finality and the said order has not been appealed against and the change of entries deleting the name of the petitioner herein, which was entered in pursuance of the order dated 21.07.2001, and entering the name of first respondent’s father-Kareemkhan, is unwarranted and unsustainable. 11. In the circumstances, it is, therefore, considered just and necessary to remit the matter to the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district for fresh disposal of the revision petition on merits in accordance with law duly adverting to and answering the contentions raised by both parties after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. The impugned order is therefore held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside as the same is bereft of any reasons and does not disclose application of mind to the contentions of both sides. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.06.2011 bss