- (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner herein has questioned the validity of the order of the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer of Pegadapalli Mandal of Karimnagar District, dated 4.6.1996, passed in Proceedings No.B/403/93, by which, he has confirmed the earlier order, dated 16.12.1991, passed in File No.ROR/489/488/ 490/89-91, in exercise of powers under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the order of the appellate authority, dated 23.12.2004, passed in Proceedings No.D1/4516/97.
(2.) ONE Sri Mudugunti Anantha Reddy was owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.9.03 gts., covered by Sy.No.l53/B of Aravelli Village of Pegadapally Mandal in Karimnagar District. The petitioner claims that he has purchased the land admeasuring Acs.6.32 gts. in the aforesaid survey number jointly along with respondents 4 and 5, vide registered sale deed, dated 27.11.1970, bearing Document No.3555/70. He also claims to have purchased another piece of land admeasuring Acs.2.11 gts. in the same survey number along with respondent No.5 vide registered document, dated 29.12.1971, bearing Document No.3104/71. It is his case that he was having l/3rd share in the land admeasuring Acs.6.32 gts., and half share in the land admeasuring Acs.2.11 gts., and when there was a dispute between the joint owners, it is stated that the petitioner had filed suits in OS Nos.125 and 126 of 1976 on the file of District Munsiff, Jagtial, seeking partition and separate possession of his share. The said suits were decreed finally by final decree, dated 29th January 1987, and it is stated that in the execution proceedings in EP Nos.7 and 8 of 1987, he was also put in possession of his share in terms of the final decree, on 10.9.1987, and since then, he is in possession of the aforesaid land. At that stage, it appears, respondents 4 to 6, claiming purchase of the entire land admeasuring Acs.9.03 gts., covered by Survey No.l53/B by way of unregistered sale deed from the original owner Sri Anantha Reddy in the year 1968, filed an application under Section 5-A of the Act, seeking regularization of alienation. At first instance, the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer passed the order, dated 16th December 1991, validating the sale, as against which, the petitioner herein preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent, who by his order, dated 11.7.1993, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent to conduct de-nova inquiry and pass appropriate orders. The 3rd respondent, again, by impugned order, dated 4.6.1996, passed in Proceedings No.B/403/93, by recording a finding that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim, has confirmed the earlier order, dated 16th December 1991, passed in File No.ROR/489/488/490/89-91. As against the said order, the petitioner herein carried the matter by way of appeal as provided under Section 5(5) of the Act, before the 2nd respondent/ Sub-Collector. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by order, dated 28.4.1997, passed in Proceedings No.B/5904/95. The appellate authority has recorded a finding that the original owner, who appeared before the Mandal Revenue Officer, has denied the execution of registered sale deed and confirmed the simple sale deed executed on 15.6.1968 in favour of respondents 4 to 6. He has also stated in the order that except the certified copies of the registered documents along with the Court decrees, the petitioner has not filed any other documents, and such documents cannot be taken as valid instruments to consider his right over the appeal land. On dismissal of appeal by the 2nd respondent vide order, dated 28th April 1997, the petitioner carried the matter further in revision as provided under Section 9 of the Act, before the 1st respondent/Joint Collector. The 1st respondent also, on the ground that records disclosed that Sri M. Anantha Reddy has denied the selling of land in favour of petitioner and admitted the document executed in favour of respondents 4 to 6 in the year 1968, rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondents 4 and 5 died and respondents 7 to 11 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased 4th respondent and respondents 12 and 13 as legal representatives of the 5th respondent.
(3.) IN this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that as much as the petitioner has purchased the land along with respondents 4 to 5 by registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.3555/70 and 3104/ 71, dated 27.11.1970 and 29.12.1971 respectively, and as he was also put in possession of his share pursuant to the final decree passed by the learned District Munsiff, Jagtial, the 3rd respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 5-A of the Act, to regularize the alienation claimed by respondents 4 to 6 in the year 1968. It is stated that the said unregistered document of 1968 is a false and concocted document, brought into existence by respondents 4 to 6 in collusion with the original owner Sri M. Anantha Reddy. It is also his case that inspite of filing documentary evidence i.e. certified copies of registered sale deeds and final decrees passed in OS Nos.125 and 126 of 1976, the appellate and revisional authorities, without considering the matter in proper perspective, refused to accept the said documents merely basing on the statement made by the original owner, who has colluded with respondents 4 to 6. The 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer has filed a detailed counter- affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the vendor of the land Sri M. Anantha Reddy has deposed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pegadapalli, on 18.2.1991, to the effect that he never executed any registered document. It is also averred that the petitioner did not choose to file a case against the vendor in a Civil Court, and as much as the original owner has executed simple sale deed, dated 15.6.1968 in favour of respondents 4 to 6, as deposed by him before the Mandal Revenue Officer to that effect, the claim of purchase made by the petitioner is not correct, and that there is no procedural lapse at any point of time. In the counter, it is further stated that the copies of registered documents and the Court decrees cannot be taken as valid instruments to consider the petitioner's right over the land. Pleading that there is no truth in the contention of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.;