THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.23459 of 2001 Date : 02.12.2010 Between : China Swamy (died per L.Rs.) C. Nanda Kumar and others. … Petitioners and The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.23459 of 2001 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Joint Collector in file No.D.5/6146/97, dated 11.6.2001, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Division, in case No.C/2659/1995, dated 28.6.1997, whereunder he had set aside the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in B/403/92, dated 23.1.1993. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Acs.2-19 guntas of land in Sy.No.126 situated at Malreddipally village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under a private sale deed, dated 15.5.1974, from one Smt. Dastagiri Ratnamma, w/o. late Chinna Hanmappa, the 4th respondent herein. On the basis of the above private sale deed, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5(a) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 to regularize the sale and issue a certificate of title to the petitioner. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tandur Mandal, by order dated 23.1.1993, directed the petitioner to deposit the necessary deficit stamps etc., and thereafter the certificate is said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Though the executant of the sale deed i.e., the 4th respondent was said to be present and her statement was also recorded, she has preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Division, challenging the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, stating that by the date of the alleged sale, pleaded by the petitioner, her husband was alive and she could not have alienated the property. She further contended that she has been in possession of the property and the claim of the petitioner about his continuous possession is not correct. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after considering the material on record, found that the original records of the Mandal Revenue Officer are missing and also found that the land under alienation is not an agricultural land and, therefore, no title certificate can be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. He also found fault with the procedure adopted by the Mandal Revenue Officer and consequently set aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Joint Collector, who, by the impugned order, dated 11.6.2001 in File No.D.5/6146/97, confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The point for consideration is - whether the order of the Joint Collector, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, is legal and sustainable. 5. According to the claim of the petitioner, it is the 4th respondent-vendor of the property, who has raised an objection that her husband was alive by the date of private sale in the year 1974 and she could not have executed a valid sale deed in favour of the petitioner and that the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector have placed burden on the petitioner whether the husband of the 4th respondent-vendor is alive or not, whereas the burden lies on the 4th respondent-vendor herself. 6. Evidently, as can be seen from the extract of 10(1) Register of the year 1976-77 filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the deceased Chinna Hanmappa left behind him, the wife Dastagiri Ratnamma, Gundappa and Bandeppa, two minor sons; and Yashoda, a minor daughter. Evidently, the above sale deed was not on behalf of all the minor children and Smt. Dastagiri Ratnamma, being a female member of the family, could not have alienated the property to convey a valid title to the petitioner. 7. In view of the above circumstances and also the complicated fact of deciding the validity of the private sale deed, dated 15.5.1974, disputed by the 4th respondent-Ratnamma herself and when the properties are prima-facie found to be non- agricultural lands by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector and houses were existing, the matter requires a thorough enquiry into the facts as to the nature of the land and binding nature of the contract, which can evidently be decided only by a civil Court. It is more so, in this case, when alienation is said to have been made subsequently in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 12 by registered sale deeds and the validity of such transactions cannot be considered in this writ petition. 8. Therefore, the petitioners are given liberty to file a suit for establishing their right over the land in question in accordance with law. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case. It is made clear that any of the findings recorded by the Joint Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer will not be operating as an estoppel or resjudicata against the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J 02.12.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.23459 of 2001 02.12.2010 (Msr)