Even though AN AGREEMENT OF SALE CAN NOT BE REGULARIZED BY M.RO. UNDER SEC.5A OF AP.PATTADAR PASSBOOK RIGHTS IN LAND ACT = NO APPEAL AFTER 10 YEARS Rule 22-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books under Rules, 1989, = Erroju Brahmachary S/o.Ramachandram, aged 46 years, Occu:Employee, R/o.Mancherial, Adilabad District & Ors. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District & Ors.= Reported in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydispfree.aspx?filename=9391

Even though AN AGREEMENT OF SALE CAN NOT BE REGULARIZED BY M.RO. UNDER SEC.5A OF AP.PATTADAR  PASSBOOK RIGHTS IN LAND ACT =  NO APPEAL AFTER 10 YEARS Rule 22-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books under Rules, 1989 =
AN AGREEMENT OF SALE CAN NOT BE REGULARIZED BY M.RO. UNDER SEC.5A OF AP.PATTADAR  PASSBOOK RIGHTS IN LAND ACT =
in K.R.Goud v. Bhavanarishi Co-op. House Building
Society2;  K.Seetharama Reddy & Anr. v. Hassan Ali Khan3; Mukhala Kotilingam   
(died) by LRs. v. Joint Collector, R.R. District, Hyd.4 and Pochi Reddy v. RDO,
Vikarabad, RR Dist. & Ors.5.

8.      In K.R. Goud's case (2nd supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that
agreement of sale cannot be considered a transfer within the meaning of Section
5-A of the Act, in such a case, the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot proceed to
hold an enquiry as to whether agreement of sale has been complied with or not.
It has been further held that on failure on the part of vendor to complete the
sale transaction, a person in whose favour there is an agreement of sale can
seek specific performance of the agreement of sale so as to convey right, title
or interest of the vendors.    The machinery provided under the Act is not the
appropriate machinery for perfecting title merely on the basis of agreement to
sell.

9.      In K.Seetharamma Reddy & Anr.'s case (3 supra), a Division Bench of this
Court held that the transactions under documents which are mere agreements of
sale cannot be regularized under Section 5-A of the Act.

10.     In Mukhala Kotilingam (died) by LRs.'s case (4 supra), a learned Single
Judge of this Court quoted the above two Division Bench judgments with approval.

11.     In Pochi Reddy's case (5 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court held
that once an order obtained from the Mandal Revenue Officer validating an
unregistered sale deed on a false representation that the vendor-pattadar has
died though he was factually alive, the Revenue Divisional Officer is justified
in setting aside the said order on the ground of fraud and that no order can be
allowed to stand if it was obtained by fraud.
.............................................................................................................................
NO APPEAL AFTER 10 YEARS under Rule
22-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, =
Indisputably, alienations basing on the sale deeds have been
regularized in the year 1994 vide proceedings No.ROR/473/89, dated 22.03.1994,issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 
Under
Section 5-B of the Act an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer
against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer validating the
unregistered sale deeds under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act.  
Rule
22-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, (for short,
'the Rules'), details the procedure for filing the appeal. 
 For better
appreciation, I may refer Rule 22-A of the Rules, which reads as hereunder:
        "22-A. (1) An appeal against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer
under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act shall be to the Revenue
Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector.
        (2) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be in writing and shall
set-forth concisely the grounds thereof within a period of sixty days, from the
date of communication of order and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order
appealed against.
        (3) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) above shall bear a court fee
stamp of rupees five only.
        (4) Every appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six months from
the date of filing of the appeal."

A plain reading of Section 5-B of the Act and Rule 22-A of the Rules indicates
that an aggrieved person has to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional
Officer within the stipulated time.
The writ petitioners have specifically
pleaded in the counter filed by them before the Revenue Divisional Officer with
regard to maintainability of the appeal after 10 years of the order passed by
the Mandal Revenue Officer validating the sales.  
The Revenue Divisional Officer
has not dealt the issue as to maintainability of the appeal after 10 long years.
In a way, the Revenue Divisional Officer has committed a serious error apparent
on the face of the records in not adjudicating the issue as to maintainability
of the appeal which is a crucial one in the given facts and circumstances of the
case.  
Where there is an error apparent on the face of the records, existence of
alternative remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act to question the order
impugned in the writ petitions is not a bar to grant relief under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.  
Since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial,
Adilabad District-1st respondent has not dealt the issue which is a crucial one,
the order impugned in the writ petitions is liable to be set aside and the
matter needs to be remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial,
Adilabad District-1st respondent for adjudication afresh on the maintainability
of the appeal and thereafter on merits.

13.     Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are allowed setting aside the
Order, dated 08.04.2009, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial,
Adilabad District-1st respondent in appeal No.G/2285/2005, and also the
consequential notice vide Rc.No.F/ROR/12862/2009, dated 26.12.2009, issued by  
the Tahsildar, Mancherial, Adilabad District-2nd respondent and remanding the
matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District-1st
respondent to adjudicate the issue as to maintainability of the appeal and
thereafter on merits.  No costs.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY          

WP Nos.24352 of 2009; 2596 and 13077 of 2010  

30-10-2012

W.P.No.24352 of 2009

 Erroju Brahmachary S/o.Ramachandram, aged 46 years, Occu:Employee,    
R/o.Mancherial, Adilabad District & Ors.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District & Ors.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: SRI V.RAVI KIRAN RAO (in WP Nos.24352 of 2009 and 2596          
of 2010)

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:SRI A.L.RAJU (in W.P.No.13077 of 2010)        

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ASST. GOVT. PLEADER FOR REVENUE COUNSEL FOR                      
RESPONDENT NO.3: SRI M.R.S.SRINIVAS      

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?CITATIONS:
1) 2003 (1) ALT 688(DB)
2) 2003 (5) ALD 654 (DB)
3) 2003 (1) ALD 563 (DB)
4) 2005 (2) ALD 838
5) 2004 (4) ALD 77

Writ Petition No.2596 of 2010:

Between:
K.V.Pratap S/o.K.V.Ramanaiah ..... Petitioner
AND

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District & Ors.
.....Respondents

Writ Petition No.13077 of 2010:
Between:
M/s.Bharathi Educational Society rep. by its President Smt.Bharathi Murthy &
Anr. ..... Petitioners
AND

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District & Ors.
.....Respondents

(Writ Petition Nos.24352 of 2009; 2596 and 13077 of 2010)

COMMON ORDER:    

        The petitioners invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly pray for issuance of
writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records and the
Order, dated 08.04.2009, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial,
Adilabad District-1st respondent in appeal No.G/2285/2005 and quash the same. 

2.      The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent- Revenue Divisional 
Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District, is challenged on various grounds in
W.P.Nos.24352 of 2009 and 13077 of 2010 and 
whereas the notice vide  
Rc.No.F/ROR/12862/2009, dated 26.12.2009, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer,   
Mancherial, Adilabad District-2nd respondent is challenged in W.P.No.2596 of
2010.

3.      Since the order challenged in the Writ Petition Nos.24352 of 2009 and
13077 of 2010 is one and the same and the notice under challenge in W.P.No.2596 
of 2010 is a consequential one to the order impugned in the former two writ
petitions, all the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of
by this common order. 

4.      Facts in brief are:
Regalla Purushotham was the owner and possessor of
Ac.8.03 guntas in Survey No.754 and Ac.1.211/4 guntas in Survey No.763, situated
at Garmilla Shivar of Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District.
He died issueless about 40 years back.
His wife Smt.Prabhavathi inherited his properties as his
legal heir.
She sold Ac.8.03 guntas in Survey No.754 in favour of Thoutam
Lingaiah under a sada sale deed, dated 06.08.1969, for a consideration of
Rs.4,200/-.
Thoutam Lingaiah, his wife Buchamma and his son Guravaiah executed
a sale deed, dated 24.05.1984 for one acre in favour of Erroju Brahmachary-1st
petitioner in W.P.No.24352 of 2009 and
Ac.2.00 acres in favour of Manda Vasantha W/o.Rama Rao-2nd petitioner in W.P.No.24352 of 2009 on 25.02.1983.
The
petitioners 1 and 2 executed a sale deed in respect of Ac.3.00  in Survey No.754
in favour of K.V.Pratap S/o.K.V.Ramanaiah-petitioner No.3 in W.P.No.24352 of
2009 and sole petitioner in W.P.No.2596 of 2010.
The petitioner No.3 in
W.P.No.24352 of 2009 purchased one acre under a registered sale deed bearing
document No.754 of 2001, dated 12.03.2001 and two acres under a registered sale
deed bearing Document No.779 of 2001, dated 12.03.2001 and thus,  he became the
absolute owner and possessor of three acres.
M/s.Bharathi Educational Society,
rep. by its President Smt.Bharathi Murthy-1st petitioner in W.P.No.13077 of 2010
purchased three acres in Survey No.754 from Thoutam Lingaiah under a sale deed,
dated 15.09.1983.
All the unregistered sale deeds have been validated by the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial-2nd respondent on 22.03.1994 vide proceedings Nos.ROR/473/89, ROR/471/89 and ROR/474/89.
After getting the alienations
validated, M/s.Bharathi Educational Society, rep. by its President Smt.Bharathi
Murthy-1st petitioner in W.P.No.13077 of 2010, executed a sale deed for three
acres in favour of Smt.Katari Rohini-2nd petitioner in W.P.No.13077 of 2010.

Regalla Sudhakar claimed to be the adopted son of Regalla Purushotham.  
He filed
an appeal No.G/2285/2005 under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, (for short, 'the Act') before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District-1st respondent.
 He pleaded
before the appellate Authority-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial that the
writ petitioners fabricated the un-registered sale deeds and got the alienations
regularized by playing fraud and that he came to know of the regulation
proceedings on 20.07.2005. 
 He also pleaded before the appellate Authority that
he inherited the properties of Regalla Purushotham as adopted son and that
Regalla Prabhavathi W/o.Purushotham left the house and his best efforts to know
her whereabouts proved to be futile. 
Since the whereabouts of Regalla
Prabhavathi were not traced for several years, he performed her death ceremonies
deeming that she was no more, as per customs prevailing in the Society. 
He
approached the Gram Panchayat authorities and obtained her death certificate and
produced the same before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial-2nd respondent 
and got mutation of the lands owned by Regalla Purushotham in his name. 

According to him, the writ petitioners obtained regularization of alienations
basing on fabricated sale deeds.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial,
Adilabad District-1st respondent entertained the appeal and issued notice to the
writ petitioners.
Pending the appeal, Regalla Sudhakar died and his wife
Regalla Godavari came on record as his legal representative.
The writ
petitioners appeared before the appellate Authority and placed on record their objections for maintaining the appeal after a delay of about 10 years of the order passed under Sction 5-A of the Act. They also disputed of Regalla
Sudhakar's status as adopted son of Regalla Purushotham.
The Appellate 
Authority, on considering the  material brought on record and on hearing the
counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the Tahsildar,
Mancherial, committed error in regularizing the alienations without there being
any validation of sale deeds executed in favour of Thoutam Lingaiah and thereby
proceeded to remand the matter back to the Tahsildar, Mancherial with a
direction to conduct a detailed enquiry after issuing notices to all the
concerned and to dispose of the same on merits, by an order, dated 08.04.2009.
For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed by
the appellate authority and it is thus:
        "In the above circumstances the petitioner has not produced documentary
evidence in support of petition. 
On perusal of Certified Copy of Pahanies of
Garmilla village of Mancherial Mandal for the year 1965-66 Regalla Purushotham
has recorded as pattedar and shown cultivation column as Nil in respect of
Sy.No.754 to an extent of 8.03 acres. 
Certified Copy of Pahani 1966-67 of
Garmilla village. 
Regalla Purushotham recorded in Pattedar Col.No.11 and Gopu
Banaiah shown in cultivation column.  
C.C. of Pahani of Garmilla village from
1971-72 to 2002-03 Smt.Regalla Prabhavathi recorded as pattedar in Column No.12 
and relevant files pertains to Tahsildar, Mancherial bearing No.ROR/GR/474/89,
Dated:22.3.1994, Sri Erroju Brahma Chary S/o.Ramachandram has purchased the land    
bearing Sy.No.754  to an extent of 1.00 acre from Toutham Lingaiah his wife
Buchamma and his son Gurvaiah, through ordinary sale deed on 24.5.1984 for 
consideration of Rs.8,000.00, according to ordinary sale deed 13-B certificate
issued in favour of Sri Erroju Brahmachary and implemented in Revenue Records,
and further Thoutam Lingaiah, Buchamma and Guruvaiah sold away the above Sy.No.   
to an extent of 2.00 acres situated at Garmilla Shivar to Smt.Manda Vasantha
W/o.Rama Rao through ordinary sale deed on 25.2.1983 and the same was    
implemented in Revenue Records under ROR provisions, in favour of purchaser
Smt.Bharathi Murthy, Secretary Bharathi Educational Society has purchased the 
land in Sy. No.754 to an extent of 3.00 acres situated at Garmilla Shivar from
Thoutam Lingaiah, Buchamma and his son Thoutam Guruvaiah through ordinary sale   
deed on 15.9.1983, and according to the sale deed the same was implemented in 
Revenue Records vide Mandal Revenue Officer Proc.No.ROR/Garmilla/471/89,   
Dated:31.3.1994 and remaining balance area in Sy.No.754 to an extent of 2.03
acres and in Sy.No.763 to an extent of 1.21 3/4 situated at Garmilla Shivar
succession has been sanctioned vide Mandal Revenue Officer, 
Proc.No.ROR/Garmilla/213/04, dated: 16.11.2004 in favour of Regalla Sudhakar
S/o.Seetharam. 
        In view of the above discussions, on perusal of files of Tahsildar,
Mancherial vide Proc.No.ROR/473/89, ROR/471/89, and ROR/474/89, 
this Court   
observed that the Tahsildar, Mancherial without implementation of 1st purchaser
who is the husband of the Respondent No.1.  
Therefore, the Orders passed by the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial vide the above proceedings are hereby set
aside."

The Order, dated 08.04.2009, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Mancherial, Adilabad District-1st respondent and the consequential notice issued
by the Tahsildar, Mancherial, Adilabad District-2nd respondent are under
challenge in these three writ petitions.

5.      Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners in W.P.Nos.24352 of 2009 and 2596 of 2010; Sri A.L.Raju, leaned
counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in W.P.No.13077 of 2010; learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 2;
and                 Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd
respondent in all the writ petitions.

6.      Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that Regalla Sudhakar did not produce any evidence before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District-1st respondent to prove that
he was the adopted son of Regalla Purushotham and therefore, he was not entitled
to question the validation proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Mancherial, Adilabad District, under Section 5-A of the Act.  He would also
contend that the appeal filed by Regalla Sudhakar before the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District, was barred by limitation and that
Regalla Sudhakar had not offered any plausible reasons to entertain the appeal
after 10 years of the proceedings, under which alienations have been regularized
by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District.
He would also
contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District,
despite the plea taken by the petitioners herein with regard to maintainability
of the appeal filed by Regalla Sudhakar did not adjudicate the issue as to
maintainability and thereby erred in entertaining the appeal.
 In support of his
submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in
M.B.Ratnam v. Revenue Divisional Officer, RR District1,
wherein it has been
held that condonation of delay and allowing of appeals after long lapse of more
than 10 years merely on submissions made during the course of appeal without
there being any foundation for them in the pleadings is not legal.  Much
emphasis has been laid on paras.49 and 50 of the cited judgment and they are
thus:
        "49. The observations or findings, as the case may be, of the appellate
authority are totally vague and indefinite. The observations are unintelligible.
There is no material in support of the said observations. Neither the affidavit
nor the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, which are similar in all the cases, do
not contain any such averments or allegations. It is not known wherefrom the
appellate authority got this information. May be such submissions were made
during the course of hearing of appeals. Submissions without there being any
foundation in the pleadings cannot be taken into consideration particularly in a
case where an appeal is sought to be preferred after a period of more than 10
years. No reasonable man would have arrived at such conclusion as that of the
appellate authority in the instant case.
50. In our considered opinion, even in the absence of communication of the
orders by the Mandal Revenue Officer as required under the Rules, the appeal
under Sec.5-B of the R.O.R. Act by an aggrieved person is required to be filed
within a reasonable time. 
The appeals are to be filed within a reasonable time
from the date of knowledge of the order. 
We have already noted that consequent
upon the orders and the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
necessary entries were made in the pass-books recording the names of the 
petitioners herein as owners of the property. 
The names were incorporated in the
faisal patties (Revenue account) and they were accordingly made liable to pay
the land revenue payable in respect of land to the Government. It is difficult
to accept that the respondents herein did not have the knowledge of the Mandal
Revenue Officer issuing the certificate in the light of the necessary changes
and modifications carried in the revenue records and the village records. The
material available on record discloses that the respondents never had any
connection whatsoever with the lands ever since the date of orders of Mandal
Revenue Officer. 
Evidently, they were not even paying the land revenue. The
belated attempt on the part of respondents herein to impugn the orders passed by
the Mandal Revenue Officer is nothing but an after-thought. Settled legal rights
cannot be permitted to be unsettled in this fashion. Such course is not
permissible in law. 
If such a course is permitted, there will be no end to the
litigation and no finality can be attached to any of the orders of the Courts or
Tribunals, as the case may be."

7.      Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent in
all the writ petitions submits that the sale deeds sought for regularizations
are in the nature of agreements of sale, in which case, alienations pursuant to
the agreements of sale cannot be regularized under Sec.5-A of the Act.
It is
also submitted by the learned counsel that the validation proceedings have been
obtained on false representations and therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Mancherial, Adilabad District-1st respondent is justified in setting aside the
regularization proceedings and remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar,
Mancherial, Adilabad District-2nd respondent for de nova enquiry.  
He would
also submit that the writ petitioners got an efficacious alternative remedy of
revision under Section 9 of the Act and therefore, the writ petitions are liable
to be dismissed.
In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on
judgments of this Court in K.R.Goud v. Bhavanarishi Co-op. House Building
Society2;  K.Seetharama Reddy & Anr. v. Hassan Ali Khan3; Mukhala Kotilingam   
(died) by LRs. v. Joint Collector, R.R. District, Hyd.4 and Pochi Reddy v. RDO,
Vikarabad, RR Dist. & Ors.5.

8.      In K.R. Goud's case (2nd supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that
agreement of sale cannot be considered a transfer within the meaning of Section
5-A of the Act, in such a case, the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot proceed to
hold an enquiry as to whether agreement of sale has been complied with or not.
It has been further held that on failure on the part of vendor to complete the
sale transaction, a person in whose favour there is an agreement of sale can
seek specific performance of the agreement of sale so as to convey right, title
or interest of the vendors.    The machinery provided under the Act is not the
appropriate machinery for perfecting title merely on the basis of agreement to
sell.

9.      In K.Seetharamma Reddy & Anr.'s case (3 supra), a Division Bench of this
Court held that the transactions under documents which are mere agreements of
sale cannot be regularized under Section 5-A of the Act.

10.     In Mukhala Kotilingam (died) by LRs.'s case (4 supra), a learned Single
Judge of this Court quoted the above two Division Bench judgments with approval.

11.     In Pochi Reddy's case (5 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court held
that once an order obtained from the Mandal Revenue Officer validating an
unregistered sale deed on a false representation that the vendor-pattadar has
died though he was factually alive, the Revenue Divisional Officer is justified
in setting aside the said order on the ground of fraud and that no order can be
allowed to stand if it was obtained by fraud.

12.     I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions advanced by
the parties.  
Indisputably, alienations basing on the sale deeds have been
regularized in the year 1994 vide proceedings No.ROR/473/89, dated 22.03.1994,issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 
Under
Section 5-B of the Act an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer
against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer validating the
unregistered sale deeds under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act.  
Rule
22-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, (for short,
'the Rules'), details the procedure for filing the appeal. 
 For better
appreciation, I may refer Rule 22-A of the Rules, which reads as hereunder:
        "22-A. (1) An appeal against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer
under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act shall be to the Revenue
Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector.
        (2) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be in writing and shall
set-forth concisely the grounds thereof within a period of sixty days, from the
date of communication of order and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order
appealed against.
        (3) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) above shall bear a court fee
stamp of rupees five only.
        (4) Every appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six months from
the date of filing of the appeal."

A plain reading of Section 5-B of the Act and Rule 22-A of the Rules indicates
that an aggrieved person has to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional
Officer within the stipulated time.
The writ petitioners have specifically
pleaded in the counter filed by them before the Revenue Divisional Officer with
regard to maintainability of the appeal after 10 years of the order passed by
the Mandal Revenue Officer validating the sales.  
The Revenue Divisional Officer
has not dealt the issue as to maintainability of the appeal after 10 long years.
In a way, the Revenue Divisional Officer has committed a serious error apparent
on the face of the records in not adjudicating the issue as to maintainability
of the appeal which is a crucial one in the given facts and circumstances of the
case.  
Where there is an error apparent on the face of the records, existence of
alternative remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act to question the order
impugned in the writ petitions is not a bar to grant relief under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.  
Since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial,
Adilabad District-1st respondent has not dealt the issue which is a crucial one,
the order impugned in the writ petitions is liable to be set aside and the
matter needs to be remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial,
Adilabad District-1st respondent for adjudication afresh on the maintainability
of the appeal and thereafter on merits.

13.     Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are allowed setting aside the
Order, dated 08.04.2009, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial,
Adilabad District-1st respondent in appeal No.G/2285/2005, and also the
consequential notice vide Rc.No.F/ROR/12862/2009, dated 26.12.2009, issued by  
the Tahsildar, Mancherial, Adilabad District-2nd respondent and remanding the
matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District-1st
respondent to adjudicate the issue as to maintainability of the appeal and
thereafter on merits.  No costs.
______________________  
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.      
Date:30th October, 2012.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.