LAWS(APH)-2012-7-14

S NIRANJAN REDDY Vs. GP FOR REVENUE

Decided On July 25, 2012
S NIRANJAN REDDY Appellant
V/S
GP FOR REVENUE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respective fathers of the petitioners herein are said to have purchased different extents of land, aggregating to 92 acres in survey Nos.668 to 673 and 679 of Gundlapochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from the owners thereof through unregistered documents, in the year 1975. It is stated that the petitioners, or their fathers, as the case may be, have initiated proceedings under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), for validation of the unregistered sale deeds. Orders are said to have been passed in the year 2000, as regards the individual sale transactions, duly collecting the stamp duty. Pattdar pass books and title deeds are issued in favour of the petitioners, apart from making entries in their favour in the revenue records.

(2.) ACTING on certain items in the newspapers and representations from the persons in the locality, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd respondent herein, called for a report from the Tahasildar, the 3rd respondent, as to the genuinity of the said transactions. The 3rd respondent is said to have reported that the relevant file is not available and the proceedings are not genuine. On this basis, the 2nd respondent directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 1st respondent, to take up an appeal suo motu, under Section 5-B of the Act. Accordingly, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 5-B of the Act, and issued notice to the petitioners. An objection was raised as to the power of the 1st respondent to initiate suo motu proceedings. However, through order, dated 04.02.2012, the 1st respondent has set aside the orders of validation passed in favour of the petitioners, in respect of the lands mentioned therein. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.