CHATRU Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the writ petitions the order passed by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District in Revision Case No.D 1/29/2004 dated 2.4.2006 is challenged. Therefore, this common order shall dispose of all the writ petitions.

(2.) The petitioners claim that they purchased the land from Sattar Miyan, one of the sons of original pattadar, late Buran Uddin, sometime during 1982-1984 for a valuable consideration. They, thereafter, approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jedcherla (MRO), under Section 5A of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity) seeking validation of the unstamped and unregistered sale deeds. According to the petitioners, after conducting enquiry, the MRO issued proceedings on 12.1.1995 regularising/validating the sale deeds under which the petitioners purchased the property from Sattar Miyan and others in respect of the land in various survey numbers situated in China Adirala Village of Jedcherla Mandal in Mahaboobnagar District. Aggrieved by the same, the other sons of Buran Uddin, namely, Mohammed Moinuddin and Mohammed Dastagiruddin, respondents 2 and 3 herein, filed a revision petition under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Collector in 2004. By impugned order dated 4.2.2004, the Joint Collector came to the conclusion that wrong entries were made in the revenue records and accordingly ordered cancellation of these entries.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the Joint Collector is in violation of principles of natural justice and that none of the petitioners were served with notice as required under Rule 23 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (the Rules, for brevity). Secondly, it is urged that without giving any reasons, the first respondent passed orders and, lastly, it is contended that against any order passed under Section 5A of the Act, appeal would lie to the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under Section 5B of the Act and, therefore, without availing the remedy of appeal before the RDO, revision petition under Section 9 of the Act is not maintainable. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents disputes the allegation that notices are not served and submits that the enquiry was conducted properly.