THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.24607 OF 2001 DATED: 27.07.2009 Between: T. Narsinga Rao .. Petitioner And Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.24607 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 23.07.2001 passed by the 1st respondent- Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.93, admeasuring Ac.1.04 gts., situated at Moosapet Village, Balanagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, having succeeded to the same from his father, and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same since 1968. It is his case that the 2nd respondent, claiming to be the purchaser of the said land by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 12.06.1967 executed by one Smt. Riyazunnisa Begum who is stated to have purchased the same from the father of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 09.08.1966, got mutated her name in the Faisal Patti for the year 1981-82, but even after the said mutation, the petitioner continued in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. While so, the 2nd respondent filed L.G.C.No.15 of 1994 before the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the subject land, declaring him as a land grabber. The Special Court, after full-fledged trial, by judgment dated 19.07.1994, dismissed the said L.G.C., for the reasons that the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent is invalid and the 2nd respondent has no valid and lawful title and that the alienation of the subject land is hit by Sections 47 and 48 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, before the 1st respondent, challenging the incorporation of the name of the 2nd respondent in the revenue records as pattadar of the subject land. During the pendency of the said revision, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent filed a memorandum of compromise before the 1st respondent, on 11.06.2001, stating that they have entered into compromise and the 2nd respondent received an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards full and final settlement of her outstanding claim over the subject land and they have prayed for allowing the revision in terms of compromise, ordering substitution of the name of the 2nd respondent with that of the petitioner as pattadar in the revenue records relating to the subject land. But, the 1st respondent dismissed the revision petition by the impugned order dated 23.07.2001, holding that the petitioner should have filed Jamabandi appeal against the mutation effected in favour of the 2nd respondent, that there is bar of limitation to treat the petition as Jamabandi appeal, that at the time of sanction of mutation in the year 1982, Sections 47 and 48 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act were not in force and they were omitted by Act 12 of 1969, that the petitioner cannot claim rectification under the guise of adverse possession from the year 1982-83 without cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent by the competent Court, and receiving money by the 2nd respondent would amount to transfer of property for valid consideration, for which registration is compulsory. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner contending that the 1st respondent ought not to have dismissed the revision on untenable grounds, brushing aside the memorandum of compromise entered into between him and the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner fraudulently fabricated the memorandum of compromise dated 11.06.2001 and filed it before the 1st respondent behind her back, that she never entered into any such memorandum of compromise with the petitioner and never received the amount of Rs.8,000/- as alleged, and the 1st respondent has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 reiterated the respective cases of the parties. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.1 supported the impugned order, stating that order passed by the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act is not binding on the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent can independently examine the matter, and the 1st respondent has rightly came to the conclusion that receiving money by the 2nd respondent amounts to transfer of property for valid consideration, which needs registration. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the 1st respondent could not have brushed aside the findings of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, which has all the powers of a Civil Court. The Special Court, after full-fledged trial in the L.G.C., filed by the 2nd respondent, held that the sale purported to have been made in favour of the 2nd respondent is invalid and the petitioner has perfected his title to the subject land by adverse possession. Even, as per the impugned order, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent appeared before the 1st respondent on 11.06.2001 and filed a memorandum of compromise duly signed by them and their counsel. The 1st respondent has not expressed any doubt about the validity of the said memorandum of compromise, but did not choose to accept the same and dismissed the revision, differing with the findings of the Special Court and holding that the petitioner could have filed a Jamabandi appeal against the mutation effected in favour of the 2nd respondent, and as per the memorandum of compromise, the 2nd respondent received an amount of Rs.8,000/- from the petitioner and the same amounts to transfer of property for valid consideration, for which registration is compulsory. This approach of the 1st respondent is atrocious and does not stand scrutiny of law. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, and the revenue authorities are directed to make necessary changes in the entries pertaining to the pattadar column in the revenue records relating to the subject land, taking into consideration the judgment of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, in L.G.C.No.15 of 1994 dated 19.07.1994. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 27th July, 2009. IBL