Writ petition challenging regularization of an unregistered sale deed by revenue authorities. Court held that succession by adoption is a question for civil court, not revenue. No order as to costs.
Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to approach competent civil court; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.19322 of 2014
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. The petitioner, who claims by succession, to be entitled to the property of late M. Purushotham Rao, seeks to challenge the order passed under Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) regularizing the unregistered sale deed, dated 09.07.1981, in favour of the third respondent herein. It is evident from the record that the third respondent claimed the land to an extent of Acs.8.00 in Sy.No.1163 situated at Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa Village having purchased the same from the said Purushotham. The unregistered document was regularized by the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer in File No.B/794/95 dated 04.10.1995 under Section 5 of the Act. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority after a gap of 14 years. However, the said appeal was not entertained on the ground of limitation under the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division vide Lr.No.A2/3056/2011 dated 28.07.2011, and questioning the said order, a revision was preferred before the Joint Collector and the same was dismissed under the impugned order, dated 31.05.2014 in Case No.D5/2991/2011.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously
contended that the Joint Collector has failed to appreciate that the orders regularizing the sale deed were passed without notice to the petitioner. He further submits that the provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act are not followed and the petitioner’s claim ought to have been examined by the appellate authority.
4. The petitioner claims that he is an adoptive son of late Mr. Purushotham. Firstly, the issue as to adoption cannot be adjudicated by the revenue authorities and it is only a competent civil Court, which can go into the truth and validity of the said adoption claimed by the petitioner. Secondly, the order of regularization of sale deed in favour of the third respondent was passed as early as on 04.10.1995. At this distance of time, on the basis of the petitioner’s claim that he is an adoptive son, the proceedings cannot be cancelled. Thirdly, the petitioner is yet to establish that he is the successor and the legal heir of late Mr. Purushotham and as such, there is no question of issuance of notice to him while passing the orders by the Mandal Revenue Officer.
5. In view of the aforesaid aspects, in my view, if the petitioner seeks to make a claim on the basis of adoption as successor of late M. Purushotham, he must approach a competent civil Court. It is also not in dispute that under Section 8 of the Act, the judgment and the decree of a civil Court binds the revenue authorities, and if the civil Court adjudicates the matter, the present grievance of the petitioner against the regularization of
sale deed in favour of the third respondent will be subject to such adjudication by the civil Court. In view of that, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent civil Court.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAPR, J
18th July, 2014 sj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, claiming succession by adoption, can challenge the regularization of an unregistered sale deed by revenue authorities without approaching a civil court first.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to notice and examination of his claim as a successor before the revenue authorities pass the regularization order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Late M. Purushotham Rao
Third Respondent
VILAS V. AFZALPARKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
