THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION NO.15301 OF 2010 DATED 23rd FEBRUARY, 2011 BETWEEN M/s.Happy Homes Agro Forum Limited, Represented by its Managing Partner, Syed Shafiuddin …Petitioner And The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District and others. …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION NO.15301 OF 2010 ORDER: In exercise of revisionary power under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1971’), the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, the first respondent, by his order dated 12.06.2010, set aside the regularization proceedings bearing No.D/5870/1989 dated 14.07.1992 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the third respondent, and directed the aggrieved parties to approach the civil Court to get their respective claims adjudicated. Hence, this writ petition by the aggrieved fifth respondent in the revision petition which was filed before the first respondent by the fourth respondent herein. The case of the writ petitioner is that its vendor, namely, G.V.Sathyanarayana, who is no other than the father of respondents 5 to 7 herein, applied on 24.06.1989 to the third respondent under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 seeking regularization of the alleged unregistered sale deed dated 30.10.1964 executed in his favour by the father of the fourth respondent in respect of an extent of Ac.39.00 guntas in Survey Nos.310, 311 and 312 of Budvel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Thereupon, the third respondent issued notice in Form-XI to the interested persons and general notification in Form-XII calling upon the general public to submit their claims and objections bearing upon the subject alienation on the stipulated date while fixing the date of hearing as 02.09.1989. Pursuant to the said notices, the vendor of the petitioner appeared before the third respondent and stated that he purchased the subject land from the father of the fourth respondent for a total consideration of Rs.25,000/-, and, that to evidence the said transaction, the alleged agreement of sale was executed on 30.10.1964 and that he has been in possession of the subject land since then and has been paying land revenue therefor. He therefore sought for regularization of the alleged agreement of sale. While so, it was the case of one Ahmed Ali Mirza, the G.P.A. holder of the heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza, who is the alleged vendor to the vendor of the petitioner, that he submitted a petition before the third respondent pursuant to the said notices stating to the effect that the seven heirs of the late Hyder Ali Mirza have been residing abroad for the last more than 20 years and five of whom are now foreign nationals and two of whom are Non-Resident Indians; and that their father died on 15.06.1983 and that taking advantage of the same, some unscrupulous elements had created the alleged agreement of sale in respect of the subject land by forging the signatures of late Hyder Ali Mirza. It was his further case that the third respondent was requested to direct the vendor of the petitioner to produce the agreement of sale in original and then refer the same to the Forensic Laboratory for examination of the signatures appended on the alleged sale deed with that of the genuine and admitted signatures of the said Hyder Ali Mirza, which were very much available with the Public authorities, namely, the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District at Mehdipatnam, in whose custody the documents over which the admitted signature of the said Hyder Ali Mirza were available; the Army Pension Payment Office at Masab Tank, Hyderabad; Municipal Corporation Office at Khairatabad, Hyderabad and State Bank of Hyderabad at Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. It is further stated that the heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza are governed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and also by the Reserve Bank of India Rules and Regulations. Along with the said petition, which was received by the third respondent on 27.01.1990, copies of Powers of Attorney and the letters addressed by the Reserve Bank of India to the heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza were submitted to the third respondent. The G.P.A. holder of the heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza filed another petition dated 29.06.1991 reiterating his earlier stand. He further stated that despite his request, the vendor of the petitioner did not produce the original alleged agreement of sale before the third respondent and that the subject land was not being used for agricultural purpose and therefore the provisions of the Act of 1971 do not apply to the subject land. Considering the rival claims, the third respondent observed that while the objection petitioner, namely, the G.P.A. holder of the heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza, failed to produce the documents to substantiate his averments, the vendor of the petitioner produced the original documents of the alleged sale deed on private Non-Judicial Paper written in Urdu/English/Telugu, Translation in English of Urdu copy and xerox copies of Land Revenue Receipts; and that in the revenue records albeit the patta stood in the name of Hyder Ali Mirza, in possession column the name of G.V.Sathyanarayana was found recorded from 07.01.1972. Observing so, the third respondent granted patta in favour of G.V.Sathyanarayana, who is no other than the vendor of the petitioner and the father of respondents 5 to 7 herein, by way of his proceedings No.D/5870/1989 dated 14.07.1992, in respect of the subject land under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 as amended under Act No.11 of 1980 and Act No.1 of 1989 read with Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, whereby the vendor of the petitioner was directed to deposit the requisite stamp duty fixed by the Registration Authority. Consequently, the third respondent issued validation certificate in Form-XIII(B) and Form- XIII(C) in September, 1992. While things stood thus, in December, 2005, the fourth respondent came to Hyderabad and immediately thereafter having gone to the office of the third respondent he came to know about the proceedings dated 14.07.1992 passed by the third respondent in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 14.07.1992 passed by the third respondent, the fourth respondent, who is one of the legal heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza, directly preferred an appeal along with a petition seeking to condone the delay in preferring the same before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent, under Section 5-B of the Act of 1971 assailing the said proceedings on the ground that the fourth respondent and other legal heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza were not aware of the passing of the proceedings dated 14.07.1992 by the third respondent and that their G.P.A. holder Ahmed Ali Mirza did not communicate the same to him. It was his further case that the said Ahmed Ali Mirza completely misused the authority conferred on him by colluding with the vendor of the petitioner and that the instant case was not an isolated act of his misuse of authority conferred on him and that the fourth respondent was also fighting for other properties of late Hyder Ali Mirza. Initially the second respondent took up the petition filed for seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and after hearing all the parties he condoned the delay in preferring the above appeal on 22.07.2006. However, the said order was challenged before the first respondent, by filing a revision petition. After hearing the arguments of the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material placed before him, the first respondent set aside the order dated 22.07.2006 passed by the second respondent and remitted the matter to him with a direction to examine the aspect of limitation and pass a reasoned order on the point of limitation duly examining the arguments of both sides, by his order dated 18.08.2007. Thereafter, the second respondent again took up the petition filed seeking condonation of delay in preferring appeal by the fourth respondent and heard the arguments of the learned Advocates for the parties on this petition. Thereupon, the second respondent after going through the material before him dismissed the said petition filed seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the provisions of Sections 5 and 12 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to the Act of 1971 and that the reason shown by the fourth respondent to condone the delay of 13 years, 6 months and 14 days in preferring the appeal was not tenable and that there were no other grounds urged by him. Consequently, the second respondent dismissed the appeal too without going into the merits of the appeal, by his order dated 08.02.2008. Challenging the said order dated 08.02.2008 of the second respondent, the fourth respondent filed a revision petition before the first respondent reiterating his averments that were made in the appeal preferred before the second respondent. The first respondent, after perusing the material placed before him meticulously and after having heard the arguments of the learned Advocates appeared before him, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Can Joint Collector take up revision of the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer prior to 31.10.1993, by reason of an amendment to Section 9 of the Act of 1971? 2) Can appeal/revision filed after a gap of 13 years be condoned? 3) Can Mandal Revenue Officer pass an order of validation under Section 5-A without verifying the applicability of the Act of 1971 to this land or when ‘fraud’ is discovered? After thoroughly discussing the material placed before him touching the above points and placing reliance on case law, the first respondent observed on point No.1 that he has powers to take up revision in the instant case relating to an order passed by the third respondent/Mandal Revenue Officer by his proceedings dated 14.07.1992 which were later confirmed by the second respondent. As regards point No.2, the first respondent observed that the power of suo motu /revision could be exercised within a reasonable time from the date of detection or discovery of fraud as in the present case ‘fraud and forgery’ was pointed out by Ahmed Ali Mirza as early as in the year 1990 itself before the third respondent and therefore the delay was condoned. In so far as point No.3 is concerned, the first respondent observed that even though Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 empowers the Mandal Revenue Officer/third respondent to regularize certain alienations, the revenue authority can not embark upon deciding serious disputed questions as to title when fraud, coercion, forgery, etc. was alleged in regard thereto. He placed reliance on V.KRISHNAIAH Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR (2007 (3) ALD 391). Further, the first respondent, while considering the definition of the word ‘land’ as contained under sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act of 1971 also observed that the provisions of the Act of 1971 would only apply exclusively to the agricultural lands and the same would exclude the lands that are used for non-agricultural purpose and that in such circumstances it would not be proper and competent for the third respondent to enquire into and decide the same and such disputed questions could only be decided by the Civil Court. In sequel thereto, the first respondent disposed of the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent under the impugned order dated 12.06.2010 and directed the claimants to the subject land to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication of get their respective claims. Assailing the said order dated 12.06.2010 passed by the first respondent, the present writ petition is filed by the fifth respondent in the revision petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and carefully perused the case file. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as the application by Sri G.V.Sathyanarayana, who is the vendor of the petitioner, was made on 24.06.1989 to the third respondent for regularization of the unregistered sale deed dated 30.10.1964 under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 and the third respondent after conducting due enquiry regularized the said unregistered sale deed by his proceedings dated 14.07.1992, the Act of 1971 does not provide any appeal remedy to challenge the regularizations granted under Section 5-A before 31.10.1994 by which date the provisions of Section 5-B came into force. The learned senior counsel further stated that a right of appeal being a creation of statute, it cannot have retrospective operation. He also relied upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M.B.RATNAM v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, EAST DIVISION AT HYDERABAD [2003 (1) ALT 688]. He pointed out that in such circumstances, the remedy available to question the said regularization by the aggrieved party is to file a writ petition or to file a revision petition before the Joint Collector/first respondent as per the law laid down by this Court in KONKANA RAVINDER GOUD v. BHAVANARISHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY, HYDERABAD [2003 (6) ALT 1= 2003(5) ALD 654], which according to the learned senior counsel, is pending due consideration by the Supreme Court, whereas the law laid down by this Court in M.B.RATNAM’s case has attained finality. He also argued that the appeal filed under Section 5-B of the Act of 1971 with a delay of more than 13 years before the second respondent was dismissed mainly on the ground of belated claim without going into the merits of the appeal but in the revision petition filed challenging the said order, the first respondent, without recording any finding as to the merits of the appeal or as to the question of condonation of the inordinate delay of more than 13 years in preferring the appeal, had merely set aside the regularization proceedings dated 14.07.1992 passed by the third respondent and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of their respective claims and therefore the impugned order of the first respondent is ex facie vitiated due to apparent errors. The learned senior counsel further contended that in as much as the first respondent was exercising revisional powers under the amended provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1971 while deciding the correctness of the order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the second respondent and his revisional powers were not invoked directly to assail the regularization proceedings dated 14.07.1992 passed by the third respondent, the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in KONKANA RAVINDER GOUD’s (supra) has no application to the case on hand. He also pointed out that an allegation of fraud requires heavy degree of proof and that the doctrine that fraud unravels the most solemn transactions, would only apply to the cases where the alleged fraud is proved and established and that a mere allegation of fraud could not upset the statutory order which was passed after conducting due enquiry and which had attained finality as per the provisions of the Act of 1971. He vehemently argued that any statutory remedy, namely an appeal or revision is required to be invoked within a reasonable time and in the instant case the so-called appeal filed after more than 13 years could under any given circumstances never be considered as a bona fide and honest litigation and therefore the second and first respondents could not have entertained such delayed claims which appeared to have been filed based on extraneous considerations. He also submitted that the delay defeats equity and unsettling of settled matters is deplored by Courts of law. The learned senior counsel lastly pointed out that the petitioner being the vendor of the father of respondents 5 to 7 is interested in the subject land as it purchased from him and parted with a portion of the subject land in favour of the third parties and that the petitioner has been holding an agreement of sale with possession-cum-General Power of Attorney from its vendor. He therefore prayed that the present writ petition may be allowed by upholding the regularization proceedings dated 14.07.1992 passed by the third respondent and by setting aside the order dated 12.06.2010 passed by the first respondent. Per contra, Sri P. Raghuram, learned Counsel representing Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, who is one of the legal heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza, reiterated the objections taken and grounds urged before the third, second and first respondent and stated that one Ahmed Ali Mirza, the G.P.A of the legal heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza, at the threshold of the proceedings initiated in respect of regularization of the alleged agreement of sale dated 30.10.1964 filed objections to the claim put forth by the vendor of the petitioner specifically contending that all the legal heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza have been residing abroad for the last more than 20 years and out of 7 legal heirs, 5 of them are foreign nationals and 2 of them are Non-Resident Indians and that taking advantage of the said situation, some unscrupulous elements have created the alleged agreement of sale by duly forging the signatures of late Hyder Ali Mirza long after his demise. He further contended that the G.P.A. holder of the legal heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza clearly averred in his objection petitions filed before the third respondent that the vendor of the petitioner may be directed to produce the original of the alleged agreement of sale for referring the same to the Forensic Laboratory for examination of the signatures of late Hyder Ali Mirza appended on the alleged agreement of sale with that of his admitted signatures that were available in the records which are in the custody of the public authorities and notwithstanding the same, the vendor of the petitioner failed to produce the same before the third respondent. He also argued that the subject land was not being used for agricultural purposes anymore and therefore the same does not come within the ambit and purview of the provisions of the Act of 1971. He also pointed out that when a specific allegation of fraud was made before the third respondent at the earliest point of time, it is nothing but, a dispute as to the execution of the alleged agreement of sale was raised and consequently it amounts that title to the subject land was challenged, but, the third respondent without considering the same and recording any specific finding thereon, simply passed the regularization proceedings dated 14.07.1992 and granted patta over the subject land in favour of the vendor of the petitioner instead of directing the parties to approach the competent Civil Court to get their respective claims adjudicated in view of the specific disputes raised and urged as to fraud played, in execution of the alleged agreement of sale and title over the subject land, keeping in mind the scope and ambit of Section 5-A of the Act of 1971. He therefore submitted that the regularization proceedings are without jurisdiction and the same are non est in the ye of law and can be challenged at any time and at any stage before any Court or Tribunal or authority. The learned counsel also stated that the fourth respondent and the other legal heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza did not have the knowledge of the passing of the regularization proceedings dated 14.07.1992 till December, 2005, till the fourth respondent came down to Hyderabad and that the G.P.A. holder of the legal heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza miss-used the authority conferred on him by colluding with the vendor of the petitioner. He also submitted that the fourth respondent preferred an appeal challenging the regularization proceedings dated 14.07.1992 before the second respondent and the second respondent although initially condoned the delay in preferring the same but after remand from the first respondent on the aspect of delay condonation, dismissed the appeal on the ground of long delay without adjudicating the appeal on merits. He further contended that in the revision petition filed before the first respondent, he had considered all the material placed before him and set aside the regularization proceedings dated 14.07.1992 directing the aggrieved parties to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of their grievances, by the impugned order dated 12.06.2010 which does not warrant interference from this Court as per the law laid down by this Court in KONKANA RAVINDER GOUD v. BHAVANARISHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (supra)]. He relied upon the decision of this Court in V.KRISHNAIAH v. JOINT COLLECTOR, MAHABUBNAGAR (supra) for the proposition that when a dispute is raised as to the execution of a document, its genuineness can only be decided after a full-fledged trial by a Civil Court by duly applying the principles enunciated in the Evidence Act. The learned counsel submitted that a mere agreement of sale cannot be considered as a transfer within the meaning of Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 for which he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in KONKANA RAVINDER GOUD’s case (supra). He also pointed out as to the date of execution of the agreement of sale in view of the specific discrepancy in the translated copy vis-à-vis the alleged agreement of sale which clearly presupposes the forgery and fraud played in that regard and any proceedings passed basing on such document is non est in the eye of law and such proceedings can be questioned at any time, at any stage, before any Court or Tribunal or Authority. He also placed reliance on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in S.P.CHENGAL VAYAYA NAIDU v. JAGANNATH [(1994) 1 SCC 1] in support of his plea as to fraud played by the vendor of the petitioner and in STATE OF ORISSA V. BRUNDABAN SHARMA [1995 Supp (3) SCC 249] in support of his contention as to the effect of non est order in the eye of law. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3 argued more or less on the similar lines as was argued by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent in support of the impugned order. As can be seen from the material placed before this Court, it is discernible that obviously there is a dispute as to the execution of the alleged agreement of sale and as to the title over the subject land, well right from the stage of initiation of regularization proceedings. It is also manifest from the record that there is a discrepancy as to the date of execution of the alleged agreement of sale, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7, which is palpable on the face of it when both the English translated copy from Urdu and the agreement of sale produced before the third respondent are looked into by placing them in juxtaposition. The English translated copy from Urdu reflects the date of execution of the document as 31.01.1983 whereas the agreement of sale in Urdu reflects as 30.10.1964. Thus there is a dispute as to execution of the alleged agreement of sale. Evidently, one Ahmed Ali Mirza,the G.P.A. holder of the legal heirs of late Hyder Ali Mirza, filed two petitions on 27.01.1990 and on 29.06.1991 raising his objections as to the regularization of the subject land in favour of the vendor of the petitioner immediately after initiation of the regularization proceedings before the third respondent. He also raised specific averments as to forging the signatures of late Hyder Ali Mirza on the alleged agreement of sale and as to the fraud played in execution thereof. He also made a request to the third respondent to direct the vendor of the petitioner to produce the original of the alleged agreement of sale and upon its production before him to refer the same to the Forensic Laboratory for comparison of the signatures of late Hyder Ali Mirza appended on the alleged agreement with that of the admitted signatures of late