AIRABELLI PRABHAKAR RAO Vs. EMMADI KOTESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed challenging the order, dated 22. 07. 2006 passed by the Joint Collector, Warangal in Rc. No. E5/412/2004.

(2.) THE revision petitioner filed a revision petition before the Joint collector, Warangal under Section 9 of the A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971 r/w Rule 23 (1) of A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books rules, 1989 against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, warangal on 22. 11. 2004 in File no. A/959/03.

(3.) THE brief facts relevant for consideration in the revision petition may be stated as follows: the revision petitioner having purchased schedule mentioned land in Sy. No. 492 admeasuring Ac. 2. 15 guntas situate in Waddepally villge of Hanmakonda mandal of Warangal District from one R. Ramachandram on 09. 04. 1980 under unregistered sale deed applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanmakonda for regularization and issuance of pattadar pass book in his favour. Considering his application, the Mandal Revenue officer passed orders in File No. B2/spl/2654/02, dated 15. 12. 2002 and issued pattadar pass book in favour of the revision petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 filed an appeal against the said order under Section 5-B of the A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 before the Revenue divisional Officer, Warangal contending that their father purchased the land in question i. e. an extent of Ac. 03. 07 guntas in Sy. No. 542/a (old) corresponding to new Sy. No. 492 from R. Ramachandram and his name was also entered in Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 and the same was continued till 1976, but in the subsequent revisional survey, the survey numbers were changed and new Sy. No. 492 was assigned in the place of old Sy. No. 542. It was further contended that after the revisional survey, the revenue authorities have inadvertently recorded the name of the previous owner R. Ramchandram in the revenue records in respect of the land in question in the subsequent years. It was further contended by the respondents that the revision petitioner forged the thumb impression of r. Ramachndram on the alleged unregistered sale deed, dated 09. 04. 1980, whereas in fact, the said R. Ramachandram expired on 02. 02. 1968. In proof of the said fact, they filed the death certificate of R. Ramachandram. They also contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer on the basis of the forged unregistered document without issuing notices to them who are interested parties and real owners effected mutation in the revenue records in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules. It was also contended by them that the land in Sy. No. 492 of waddepally is a non-agricultural land, no agricultural operations have been carried out in the said lands since 1976 and the entire land is covered by house sites and residential houses, their father filed declaration before the Special officer, ULC, and he was also declared as surplus landholder of 1382 square meters vide order No. A1/346/76, dated 07. 11. 1981. Nextly it was contended by them that after obtaining permission from the ULC authorities vide orders no. D. Dis. A4/683/86, dated 31. 3. 1986, they sold the house sites in the land in question to various persons from 1993 onwards. According to them, since it is a non-agricultural land wherein the agricultural operations were discontinued from 1976, the ROR Act has no application. In the order dated 22. 11. 2003 in File no. A/959/2003, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer held as follows: