IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 20429 of 2001 BETWEEN: Smt. M. Veena Devi W/o. Late Sri. Lokender Reddy, R/o. Surampally Village, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak Dist. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Medak District, Sangareddy. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet Division, Siddipet, Medak District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak District. 4 Smt.Madati Yashodamma W/o.Late Sri Narayana Reddy R/o. Surampally Village, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak District. 5 Sri.Madati Sagar Reddy S/o.Late Sri Narayana Reddy R/o. Surampally Village, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak District. 6 Sri.Madati Damodar Reddy S/o.Late Sri Narayana Reddy R/o. Surampally Village, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak District. 7 Sri.Madati Ramakista Reddy S/o.Late Sri Narayana Reddy R/o. Surampally Village, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak District. 8 Sri.Madati Madhusudan Reddy S/o.Late Sri Narayana Reddy R/o. Surampally Village, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak District. 9 Sri.Madati Chandra Reddy S/o.Late Sri Narayana Reddy R/o. Surampally Village, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak District. 10 Sri.Madati Govardhan Reddy S/o.Late Sri Narayana Reddy R/o.Surampally Village, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari, declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein in allowing the Revision Case No.F3/10765/97(F3/6/ROR/98), dt. 10.8.2001 as illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the orders of the 1st respondent herein case No. F3/10765/97(F3/6/ROR/98), dt. 10.8.2001 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SAMBASIVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner herein challenges the order dated 10.08.2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Medak District, the ﬁrst respondent herein, in Revision Case No.F3/10765/97 (F3/6/ROR/98). By way of the said order the ﬁrst respondent set aside the proceedings dated 30.05.1992 of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak District, the third respondent herein, issuing certiﬁcate in Form XIII (B) under Section 5-A (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1971’). 2. The petitioner claimed that her father in law, late Sri Madadi Ranga Reddy, purchased an extent of 2½ acres wet land and Ac.15.21 guntas dry land in Sy.No.410 of Surampally Village, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak District about 40 years prior to the ﬁling of the writ petition from one Sri Madadi Narayana Reddy, since expired, for valuable consideration. The vendor, late Sri Madadi Narayana Reddy, is said to be the husband of the fourth respondent and the father of respondents 5 to 10 in this writ petition. 3. While so, owing to the disputes raised by these respondents, the petitioner alleged that a panchayat was held by the village elders on 10.02.1986 and basing upon the compromise settled in the panchayat, the husband of the petitioner returned 2½ acres of wet land to the respondents 4 to 10 and also paid sale consideration of Rs.4,500/-. Thereupon, the respondents 5 to 10 are said to have executed a sale deed on 10.02.1986 in favour of the petitioner’s husband, late Sri Lokender Reddy. After the expiry of her husband, the petitioner claims to have made an application under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 to the third respondent for validation of the unregistered sale deed dated 10.02.1986. Thereupon, the third respondent is said to have issued notices to respondents 5 to 10 and after examining two respondents namely, Sri M. Chandra Reddy and Sri M. Madhusudhan Reddy, who participated in the proceedings and accepted the execution of the document, the third respondent is said to have issued a certiﬁcate in Form XIII (B) appended to the Act of 1971, exercising his powers under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 vide proceedings bearing No.B/6688/89 dated 30.05.1992. Thereupon, it is stated that the ﬁfth respondent alone ﬁled an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Siddipet, the second respondent herein, under Section 5-B of the Act of 1971. It is alleged that this appeal was ﬁled with a delay of 5 years. The appeal was dismissed by the second respondent by order dated 30.09.1997. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 4 and 5 are said to have ﬁled a revision under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 before the ﬁrst respondent. The first respondent, by order dated 10.08.2001, allowed the revision setting aside the Form XIII (B) certiﬁcate issued by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 30.05.1992 and directing the third respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971. This order is presently under challenge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondents 5 to 10, being members of the same family, cannot be said to be ignorant of the developments, when two of the respondents had participated in the proceedings before the third respondent. Further, the delay in the ﬁling of the appeal is also cited as a ground of attack. 5. This Court by order dated 09.04.2002 directed status quo obtaining as on that date to be maintained. 6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 10.08.2001 would demonstrate that the ﬁrst respondent, having perused the records, found that the third respondent had failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 22(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989. Without entering into the merits of the case, the ﬁrst respondent, taking note of this procedural defect set aside the proceedings of the third respondent dated 30.05.1992 issuing a certiﬁcate in Form XIII (B). Accordingly, he directed the third respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971, duly following the procedure and after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned with the unregistered sale deed dated 10.02.1986. 7. In the light of the procedural defect pointed out by the ﬁrst respondent in his order dated 10.08.2001, it is not open to the petitioner herein to go into the merits of the case at this stage. The alleged delay on the part of the ﬁfth respondent in ﬁling the appeal and the factum of the respondents being members of the same family do not cure the defect in the statutory procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1989. It is not open to the authorities to act in variance with the procedure prescribed by law. Such a statutory defect cannot be cured by the actions of the parties. Needless to state, there can be no estoppel against the statute. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J November 12, 2008 DSK