THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Writ Petition No.12349 of 2012
26.09.2012
Smt. V.Manjula and others.
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Maklur Mandal and others.
Counsel for the petitioners: M/s. B.Venkata Rama Rao
Counsel for respondents: GP.for Revenue
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
?Cases referred:
ORDER:
The petitioners challenge the proceedings dated 29.08.2007 issued by the
Tahsildar, Maklur Mandal, 1st respondent herein under Section 5-A of the A.P.
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act')
validating certain transactions in respect of an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas in
Survey No.322 and Ac.0.371/2 guntas in Survey No.335 of Manik Bhandar Village,
Maklur Mandal, Nizamabad District.
Petitioners 1 and 2 are the daughters and the 3rd petitioner is the wife of one
late Sri Vakeel Linga Reddy. He was the pattadar of the land referred to above.
The petitioners contend that after the death of Linga Reddy, they succeeded to
the land and approached the 1st respondent with a request to issue pattadar pass
books and title deeds in their favour. Through a memo, dated 30.03.2012, the
1st respondent informed the petitioners that according to the information
contained in the office records, Linga Reddy sold the said land through an
agreement of sale on 26.12.1999 in favour of one Sri Gangadasu S/o. Lakshman and
the latter in turn transferred the same in favour of Gundala Lakapati Chinna
Gangadhar under an agreement of sale dated 01.06.2001. He further stated that
on an application submitted by Lakapati Rajubai W/o. Gangadhar, 2nd respondent
herein, under Section 5-A of the Act, the validation proceedings were issued on
29.08.2007.
The petitioners submit that the entire exercise undertaken by the 1st respondent
in passing the order, dated 29.08.2007 under Section 5-A of the Act is totally
untenable. They submit that no notice was issued by the 1st respondent before
the impugned order was passed. Another contention is that the validation, if at
all, ought to have been of the so-called agreement of sale, dated 26.12.1999
alleged to have been executed by Linga Reddy in favour of Gangadasu. It is
urged that when Gangadasu himself did not get any title, there was no basis for
him to convey the property to Gangadhar, much less for Gangadhar to convey the
property to his wife i.e., 2nd respondent herein. Other grounds are also urged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary
to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. He contends that
Linga Reddy did not execute any agreement of sale at all and in case, the 1st
respondent received any application under Section 5-A, the first and foremost
duty was to issue notice to the legal representatives of the person, who is said
to have executed the agreement. Learned counsel further submits that when the
alleged agreement of sale was in favour of Gangadasu, there was no occasion for
the 1st respondent to pass orders of validation in favour of the 2nd respondent.
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the petitioners have an
effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 5-B of the Act and
the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits the 1st respondent
has taken every step in accordance with law.
Notice Before Admission was ordered by this Court on 26.04.2012 and the
petitioners were permitted to serve notice. When the notices taken out to
respondents 2 to 4 were returned unserved, permission was accorded to effect
substituted service. Proof thereof is also filed. However, respondents 2 to 4
did not enter appearance.
The entries in the revenue records would reflect the existence of title in
favour of an individual, in respect of any piece of agricultural land. The title
may accrue to an individual, either through succession or through transfer made
in accordance with law or through a decree passed by a competent Court of law.
Whenever rights are claimed on the basis of purchase, it is only the registered
sale deed, that can be taken into account.
Since the transactions of sale take place in villages, many a time, under
unregistered documents, the Legislature provided certain mechanisms for
validation of such transactions. Section 5-A of the Act was added in the Act
with an objective of providing such facility.
Whenever an application is filed under Section 5-A of the Act, by a person with
a request to validate the transaction covered by an unregistered document, the
Tahsildar is required to issue notice to the executant, if he is alive or to his
legal representatives, if he is no more. It is only when there is no dispute as
to the execution of such document, that an order in Form XIII (B) prescribed
under the Act can be passed, validating the transaction, duly collecting the
prescribed registration charges. If there is any dispute as to the very
existence, the matter has to be left to the parties to be worked out in Courts
of law.
It is only when the transaction covered by an unregistered document executed by
a recognized owner is validated, that the transferee gets a right to alienate it
to another. Before such validation, he does not get any right to sell the
property, in view of the principle that 'no man can convey a better title than
what he has'. This being the purport of law on the subject, the question of
seeking validation of transaction covered by an unregistered document, not
validated by then does not arise.
In the instant case, there is no dispute that the land in Survey Nos.322 and 335
was held by Linga Reddy, father of petitioners 1 and 2 and husband of the 3rd
petitioner. Rights were claimed by respondents 2 to 4 on the strength of an
agreement of sale/unregistered document, dated 26.12.1999, said to have been
executed by Lingareddy in favour of Gangadasu S/o. Lakshman. Even if that
agreement of sale was true, it was only for Gangadasu, to seek validation under
Section 5-A of the Act by filing application. In such an event, the 1st
respondent ought to have issued notice to the petitioners herein. Admittedly,
the transaction covered by the said document was not validated.
Gangadasu is said to have sold the land to Gangadhar, husband of the 2nd
respondent through an unregistered document, dated 01.06.2001. Stating that
Gangadasu died and she succeeded to the property, the 2nd respondent filed
application under Section 5-A of the Act before the 1st respondent. On a
consideration of the same, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order. The
facts referred to above clearly disclose that the impugned order was totally
untenable. Firstly, no notice was issued to the petitioners, before the
validation was ordered, despite the fact that the property was recorded in the
name of Linga Reddy and that the petitioners are his legal heirs. The second is
that the validation, if at all, could have been of the so-called agreement,
dated 26.12.1999 said to have been executed by Linga Reddy in favour of
Gangadasu. Admittedly, Gangadasu executed an agreement of sale dated
01.06.2001in faovur of Gangadhar i.e., the husband of the 2nd respondent, before
he acquired any saleable interest. Since the Act does not cover the
transactions subsequent to the year 1998, it appears that a plea was raised to
the effect that Gangadasu sold the land under document dated 01.08.1998 i.e.,
much prior to the agreement of sale, dated 26.12.1999 through which he is said
to have purchased the property. Therefore, the whole exercise smacks of lack of
jurisdiction, arbitrariness and non-application of mind.
It is no doubt true that the Act provides for an appeal under Section 5-B of the
Act against any order passed under Section 5-A of the Act. However, when the
order is passed without jurisdiction and in blatant violation of the Act and the
Rules made thereunder, the petitioners cannot be required to avail the remedy of
appeal.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It
is however observed that it shall be open to respondents 2 to 4 to enforce the
rights, if any, vis--vis the land, in accordance with law.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Dt. 26.09.2012
