MUKHALA KOTILINGAM Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.Kotilingam, writ petitioner, is questioning the order passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 1st respondent herein, in File No.B1/ 7643/93 dated 24-6-1996 whereunder it was held that the sale transaction covered by an agreement of sale was held to be valid and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevelia in File No.C/541/91, dated 13-12-1991 was set aside and the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy District dated 18-1-1991 was confirmed.

(2.) The short question which had been argued by the Counsel on record is whether the impugned order can be sustained in the light of the fact that the property in question being covered by only an agreement of sale.

(3.) The 3rd respondent S.Nagamani filed an application before the 2nd respondent for grant of patta in respect of Ac. 1-06 guntas and Ac.0-11 guntas in S.No.l54/lA and 155/1 at Kokapet Village. It is stated that S.No-154/lA is of an extent of Acs.6-12 guntas of patta land and in Column No.13, the name of the writ petitioner along with his brothers had been shown and pahani patrikas of the year 1984-85 also contained the same entries. It is stated that the 3rd respondent was in never possession at all. It is also stated that no suit for specific performance was filed in this regard and a suit O.S. No.213/89 for partition in respect of the suit property had been filed in the competent Civil Court. The 2nd respondent herein on the application made by the 3rd respondent had passed an order in favour of the 3rd respondent on the strength of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the writ petitioner on 3-9-1980 for a sale consideration of Rs.12,500/-. It is stated that the writ petitioner had received an amount of Rs.9,000/- under a receipt dated 15-4-1980 and it is also stated that the 3rd respondent further paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- and since the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 came into force, the present action had been initiated. The order of the Mandal Revenue Officer was set aside holding that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar had erroneously validated the agreement of sale contrary to the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent herein filed Revision under Section 9 of the Act before the 1st respondent who had restored the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer by setting aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer referred to supra.