IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15974 of 2003 Between: … Petitioner And … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Counsel for respondents: This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 26-4-2003 passed by respondent No.1. The dispute pertains to Ac.3.01 guntas and Ac.3.24 guntas of land in Survey Nos.1236 and 1261 of Shameerpet village and Mandal. Claiming that respondent No.3 executed an agreement of sale and also a receipt agreeing to convey the above mentioned lands and that the property was in occupation of the petitioner, he approached respondent No.2 for validation of the purported document of transfer under Section 5A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). The said application was allowed and served in Form XIII(B) was issued by respondent No.2 on 16-4-1993. The said order was questioned by respondent No.3 before respondent No.1. After considering the pleadings and the respective stands of the parties, respondent No.1 in his order dated 26-4-2003 framed the following issues: Respondent No.1 held that to invoke Section 5A of the Act a person must be: (1) an occupant; (2) must claim validation on the basis of alienation or transfer; and (3) such an alienation is made otherwise than by way of a registered document. He held that the document, which was validated by respondent No.2 was only a receipt said to have been passed on by respondent No.3 and others and that the revenue records did not show that the petitioner is an occupant of the land. Respondent No.1 also found issue No.2 against the petitioner by holding that notices issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer were not properly served and, especially, they were not served on respondent No.3, who is the owner of the land in question and that on an earlier occasion respondent No.2 endorsed in the ﬁle that “case is not registered in Form-10 Register and hence rejected”. But, surprisingly, the earlier ﬁle number was rounded oﬀ and a new number was given on the basis of which the transaction was validated and certiﬁcate was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that respondent No.3 admitted execution of an agreement of sale, which is in his possession, and that as the petitioner had only a receipt executed by the petitioner and others, which clearly shows that respondent No.3 received sale consideration of Rs.2,500/- towards sale of the land in question, respondent No.2 has not committed any illegality in validating the unregistered document. ----------------------- ----------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01-09-2008 MNR