THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16700 of 2003 Dated:25.11.2010 Between: S.Venkat Reddy. ….Petitioner And The Joint Collector, R.R.District, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16700 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner allegedly entered into agreement of sale on 29.05.1999 with respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein who are allegedly the wife and sons of one late M.Vithal Rao. He then filed a suit, being O.S.No.216 of 2000, on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for specific performance of agreement of sale. The same was decreed ex parte on 09.08.2001. The petitioner allegedly came to know that M/s.A.Manohar Prasad and N.Rajsekhar Reddy had filed revision petitions before the Joint Collector against the order dated 07.01.1989 of the Mandal Revenue Officer granting succession to M/s.Narsimha, Laxmaiah, Vithalaiah and Krishna of Neelam family, who are the sons of late Neelam Gandaiah. Having come to know about this, the petitioner also filed an application seeking to implead in those revisions. At that stage, he also came to know that the appeal/petition of respondent Nos.3 to 5 was already rejected on 18.02.2002 by the Joint Collector and that while doing so some findings adverse to the petitioner were recorded therein. Therefore, assailing the order of the Joint Collector dated 18.02.2002 in Case No.D5/7083/2000, the present writ petition is filed. In the affidavit accompanying the writ petition the petitioner, who is not a party to the proceedings before the Joint Collector, made the following allegations. The land admeasuring Acs.11.20 guntas in survey Nos.41, 42, 43, 45, 53 and 63 of Kothaguda Village of Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was owned by Vithal Rao. Neelam Gandaiah was his tenant. The latter filed an application under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Act), claiming that he purchased the land under unregistered sale deed. The Tahsildar regularized the sale under Section 50-B of the Act. Vithal Rao filed appeal, which was allowed setting aside the Mandal Revenue Officer’s Certificate under Section 50-B of the Act issued on 11.06.1986. Even while the matter was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent Nos.3 to 5 again filed revision before the Joint Collector which was dismissed by the impugned order. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are served, but they remained ex parte. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, Joint Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer did not file any counter affidavit. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 50-B of the Act was repealed with effect from 15.06.1972, and therefore, the issue of certificate thereunder by the Mandal Revenue Officer fourteen years thereafter after repeal is illegal and unsustainable. Secondly, he submits that respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are vendors of the petitioner, are the legal heirs of the original pattadar Vithal Rao, and therefore in the absence of any challenge, the same cannot be doubted. He also challenges the findings recorded by the Joint Collector that respondent Nos.3 to 5 had no title by the time they entered into agreement of sale with the petitioner. The petitioner has placed before this Court the Xerox copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.216 of 2000. It is an ex parte decree in respect of plaint A and plaint B schedule properties. The legal heirs of Neelam Gandaiah are not parties to the suit nor the subsequent purchasers Rajsekhar Reddy and Manohar Prasad are the parties. It is also not clear whether the petitioner instituted execution proceedings for executing the decree. Whether or not he did, now that he obtained an ex parte decree he has to proceed against his vendors by executing the decree and collaterally he cannot seek any clarification from this Court. Needless to mention, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), all the questions arising between the parties in the suit in which the decree was passed shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Therefore, Section 47 of CPC bars the writ petition. Even on merits of the case, the petitioner, prima facie, has not made out any case. The plea that the certificate under Section 50-B of the Act issued in favour of Neelam Gandaiah is illegal and cannot be gone into for two reasons. Neelam Gandaiah or his legal heirs are not parties to the proceedings. It is well settled that in the absence of a person who is likely to be affected by a writ to be issued by this Court, the Court cannot exercise its mandamus jurisdiction. Secondly, as seen from the order of the Joint Collector the last date for making application under Section 50-B of the Act was 31.03.1972. Neelam Gandaiah submitted an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally in File No.B/525/1/85 on 31.03.1972, enclosing a copy of the agreement of sale dated 23.06.1961 executed by Vithal Rao in favour of Neelam Gandaiah. After conducting enquiry, Tahsildar recorded findings in favour of the tenant, but as the loan amount was not cleared, certificate was not issued. A certificate in Form No.IV under Section 50-B of the Act was issued only on 11.06.1986. Therefore, it cannot be held that the certificate was issued after repeal of the provision. There is yet another reason also for not accepting the writ petition. After the issue of certificate by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 50-B of the Act the legal heirs approached the Tahsildar for succession which was granted on 07.01.1989 directing to enter their names. In the enquiry before the Tahsildar it was revealed that after obtaining the necessary entries in the revenue records, the legal heirs of Gandaiah sold away the property to M/s.N.Rajsekhar Reddy, Rambhoopal Reddy and Srinivas Reddy under three different registered sale deeds dated 19.08.1996 bearing document Nos.7174/96, 7170/96 and 7173/96. It is also recorded by the Joint Collector that the sons of Gandaiah also executed four sale deeds in favour of Manohar Prasad being document Nos.577/91, dated 23.01.1991; 5094/91, dated 22.06.1991; 7544/91, dated 31.08.1991; and 376/92, dated 09.01.1992. From these, the Joint Collector correctly came to the conclusion that by the time the compromise memo was filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff they had sold away the property, and therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer could not have entertained the appeal. All this also cast a doubt on the decree obtained by the petitioner from the civil Court against respondent Nos.3 to 5. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merits, and the same is accordingly dismissed. As the respondents did not appear in the Court, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 25.11.2010 vs