SUDERSHAN REDDY G Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The CRP is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Orders passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated 18-4-1998 confirming the Order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, West Division, Ranga Reddy District, setting aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, dated 27-3-1992.

(2.) The petitioners herein filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer on 8-6-1989 stating that they had purchased agricultural lands measuring Ac. 92-02 gts. in S.Nos. 114, 115, 116, 119, 120,121 and 122 of Pedda Golconda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from one Mr. Lal Mohan Srivastava, a pattedar for a total consideration of Rs. 78,600/- under a private sale agreement on 21-3-1972. Therefore, they filed the application under Section 5-A of A.P. Record of Rights Act read with Rule 22 to regularise the un-Registered Sale Deed. The Mandal Revenue Officer by proceedings dated 27-3-1992 passed an Order allowing the application filed by the petitioners. However, Mr. G. Anantha Reddy and others filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella challenging the Order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the ground that the un-registered sale deed produced by the petitioners was forged and bogus document and that after the death of the pattedar, the lands were mutated in the name of his sons Ramesh and Kishore Srivastava and they executed Agreement of Sale in favour of the petitioner for an extent of Ac. 65-16 gts. in 1986 and from 1986 to 1992 their names were shown in the possessors column of pahani and therefore, the Mandal Revenue Officer ought to have issued a notice to them and hence they filed an appeal for setting aside the Order. The Revenue Divisional Officer after hearing the matter found that no notice was issued to the said persons. Accordingly, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad for fresh enquiry under the provisions of Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, A.P. Act No. 9 of 1994 (for brief the ROR Act). Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioners carried the matter in revision before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector by an order dated 18-4-1998 dismissed the revision filed thus confirming the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, against which the present revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. K.V. Satyanarayana Rao, submits that the very entertainment of the appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer was incompetent. The appeal was filed on 9-8-1993 and on the date of filing such an appeal, no appeal provision was available under Section 5-B. Section 5-B was introduced on 9-1-1994 with retrospective effect from 31-10-1993. Therefore, the appeal ought not to have been entertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Keshavlal Jethalal Shah vs. Mohanlal Bhagwandas. Alternatively he submits that even assuming that the appeal was maintainable, the appeal was filed belatedly beyond the limitation and no application was filed for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeal itself ought to have been dismissed as barred by limitation. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the application as filed by the petitioner itself was misconceived and was not maintainable under law and more over under Section 5(5), an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Section 5-A was introduced with effect from 21-3-1972, but, however, when Section 5--A was introduced with effect from 21-3-1972 appeal remedy was provided against such Orders. Therefore, in such a situation any Order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, an appeal remedy is available under Section 5. Section 5-B was introduced with effect from 31-10-1993 creating a specific provision of appeal against the Orders passed under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A the general provision which was available under Section 5(5) was got deleted and another provision was created under Section 5-B. Therefore, the entertainment of the appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be said to be illegal and without jurisdiction. He was having the jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. Hence, he submits that the CRP be dismissed.