HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 6915 OF 2011. DATED 18th March, 2011 BETWEEN M.V.M.K.Appa Rao …Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 6915 OF 2011. ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order dated 23.02.2011 passed in CCLA’s Ref.No.G2/393/09 by the second respondent as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.2.75 cents situated in R.S.Nos.134 and 135 of Nuzvid, Krishna District. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale on 20.03.1979 with one P.Bala Krishna, the then President of the Sports Club, Nuzvid, in respect of the subject land, for a nominal sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- by accepting an advance amount of Rs.8,000/-, with a specific purpose of construction of sports stadium in the memory of his deceased father. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner also executed a registered sale deed bearing No.740/1979, dated 30.03.1979 in favour of the District Collector, Krishna District, who is the Director, District Sports Council, Krishna District. In as much as the respondents have not taken up the construction of stadium as set forth in the alleged agreement of sale and the subject land remains fallow and neglected, the petitioner submitted a representation on 19.09.2008, followed by a legal notice dated 12.01.2009 to the respondent authorities to re-convey the subject land. He also submitted a representation dated 05.03.2009 to the second respondent to take necessary action in the matter. As no action was taken, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.19183 of 2009 before this Court. This Court, while admitting the said Writ Petition, granted interim direction to the respondents to act in furtherance of the request of the petitioner made in the representation dated 05.03.2009. When there was no compliance of the said interim order, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.1426 of 2010 complaining the disobedience of the said interim order by the respondents. Thereafter, the second respondent vide order impugned dated 23.02.2011 rejected the request of the petitioner made vide his representation dated 05.03.2009. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is instituted. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the objects enshrined in the agreement of sale are not fulfilled by the respondents, there is no justification on their part to deprive the petitioner of the subject property. He points out that the respondents are not interested in the purpose for which the land was received by them from the petitioner under the subject registered sale deed and the rejection of the representation of the petitioner is, therefore, illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the case file. Pursuant to the representation filed by the petitioner dated 05.03.2009, the second respondent called for a report from the third respondent. In the report filed by the third respondent-District Collector before the second respondent, it is stated that the petitioner has executed a registered sale deed No 740/79, dated 30.03.1979, in respect of the subject land in favour of the Director of Sports Council, Krishna District represented by its Chairman and District Collector, Krishna District, for a valid consideration of Rs.30,000/- and handed over the possession; that the execution of the said sale deed was without any reference to the alleged agreement of sale and no conditions whatsoever were stipulated therein with regard to re-conveyance; and that as the land was purchased under a registered sale deed and not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the question of re- conveyance does not arise. The second respondent, on a consideration of the material placed before him, observed in the impugned order that the subject lands are patta lands and sold by the petitioner in favour of the District Sports Council, Krishna District vide registered document dated 30.03.1979 without any conditions of re-conveyance and that violation of condition No.6 of the unregistered agreement sale dated 20.03.1979 as relied upon by the petitioner for re- conveyance is untenable in as much as the petitioner executed a registered sale deed in respect of the subject land without reference to any stipulated conditions or time frame. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner has sold the subject land to the District Sports Council, Krishna District vide registered sale deed dated 30.03.1979 for a valid consideration, without any reference to the conditions of the alleged unregistered agreement of sale. It is common knowledge that once the land is ‘sold’ through a registered sale deed for a valid consideration, the title of the land vests with the vendee. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act defines the word "sale" and deals with "sale how made" which reads: "54. 'Sale' is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.--Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a revision or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract of sale.--A contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place in terms settled between the parties." The ‘Sale’ as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, connotes a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part- promised. Thus, it is manifest that Sale being a transfer of ownership for a price and there is an absolute transfer of all rights in the property so sold. No rights are left in transferor (vendor/petitioner herein). In the case on hand, admittedly the subject land was not acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and that the same was purchased under registered sale deed 30.03.1979 by the respondent authorities, the question of re-conveyance does not arise. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 18th March, 2011. Msnro