MUNJA Vs. PARCHAKI RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the Special Deputy Collector, Adilabad had reason to believe that the transfer of immovable property of an extent of Ac. 9-15 in Survey No. 48 in Kopargadh village. Utnoor Taluk, Adilabad District was made in contravention of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (referred to in this judgment as the Regulation), a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be ejected from the said land. The petitioner objected to such ejection contending that the first respondent herein who was a tribal entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 15-2-1963 whereby he agreed to sell the land to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. That amount was paid on that day itself and possession was taken from the first respondent. Thereafter, a regular registered sale-deed was executed on 24-3-1965 The Regulation was extended to the Telangana area only on 1-12-1963. As the petitioner had obtained possession under an agreement of sale long before that day, there was no contravention of the provisions of sec. 3 of the Regulation and he could not be evicted

(2.) The Special Deputy Collector held that as the document dt/15-2-1963 was not registered it was not admissible in evidence. The only document which can be taken into consideration is the registered sale-deed dt/24-3-1965. As that sale-deed was executed subsequent to 1-12-1963 when the Regulation was extended to the Telangana area, the provisions of Sec. 3(l) of the Regulation were contravened and the transfer was null and void, and therefore directed the petitioner to be ejected from the said land and possession restored to the tribal, the first respondent.

(3.) The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Agent (District Collector, Adilabad). The District Collector held that on the day when the Regulation was extended to the Telangana area, the petitioner had no valid title to the land, as the alleged sale-transaction of 15-2-1963 was not registered. Reliance was placed upon Sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, by the petitioner, but the District Collector held that Sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act does not come into play as there was no valid contract between the transferor and the transferee in as much as no permission for selling or buying was obtained from the competent authority under sec. 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, nor was any step taken to validate the transfer under sec. 50-B of the Act. He therefore, dismissed the appeal. In the course of the judgment he also remarked that if the petitioner had purchased the land as early as February, 1963 there was no reason why he should have deferred registration till March, 1965. He also pointed out that in the registered sale deed no mention was made of the sale of the suit land on 15-2-1963 and the registered sale deed does not corroborate the agreement of sale. Further, according to the Pahani Patrak for the year 1963-64 the appellant was not in possession of the suit land. These observations would indicate that he was of the view that it was not made out that there was an agreement of sale in 1963 or that possession was handed over to the petitioner in pursuance of the agreement of sale though there is no express finding to that effect.