THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.A.No.1120 of 2008
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.
Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Pathipaka Ramprasad, learned Government Pleader for
Social Welfare for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. This intra court appeal arises out of order dated 09.08.2007 by which W.P.No.889 of 2004 preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 04.03.1959 A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation") was enacted. The said Regulation prohibits transfer of land by tribal to a non-tribal person. On 01.12.1963, the Regulation was amended and was made applicable to Adilabad district. Halafnama (unregistered affidavit) was executed between appellant No.1 and respondent No.4, who are non-tribals. In the aforesaid Halafnama, land measuring Acs.20.00 guntas in ::2::
Sy.No.144 and another part of land measuring Acs.15.11 guntas in Sy.No.145 of Wadagaon Village, Indravalli Mandal, Adilabad district, was sought to be sold to appellant No.1.
4. After execution of the aforesaid Halafnama (unregistered affidavit), the Regulation was amended with effect from 03.02.1970 and in the amended Regulation, even transfer of land by non-tribal to another non-tribal in agency areas was declared void. After the Regulation was amended, a sale deed was executed on 29.04.1970 in favour of appellant No.1.
5. The Special Deputy Collector, Adilabad, initiated proceedings under Regulation 3 of the Regulation and passed ejection order on 21.12.1984 against appellant No.1 on the ground that the Halafnama (unregistered affidavit) has to be duly stamped and registered under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908 respectively. The order of ejection was assailed by the appellants in an appeal under the Regulation, which, on 19.04.1990, was dismissed by the District Collector. The order passed by the District Collector was affirmed in revision on 09.12.2003.
::3::
6. The appellants assailed the validity of the aforesaid orders dated 21.1.1984, 19.04.1990 and 09.12.2003 passed under the Regulation in a writ petition and the learned Single Judge by order dated 09.09.2007 dismissed the said writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Regulation was amended with effect from 03.02.1970 and the Regulation has no retrospective operation. He further submitted that the Special Deputy Collector has no jurisdiction to decide the issue with regard to non- registration of a document executed in favour of the appellants. It is contended that Regulation 2(g) of the Regulation uses the expression "any other dealing", which is wide enough to include the transfer of document by Halafnama (unregistered affidavit).
8. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Gaddam Narsa Reddi ::4::
vs. Collector, Adilabad 1 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bikkina Rama Rao vs. Special Deputy Tahsildar 2.
9. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the record.
11. By executing Halafnama (unregistered affidavit), an immovable property, which is more than Rs.100/-, cannot be transferred. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), provides that 'sale' is an absolute transfer of ownership and has to be registered. Similarly, a gift deed executed under Section 123 of the Act requires registration.
12. By the unregistered document dated 25.06.1968, land measuring Ac.20.00 guntas in Sy.No.144 and Ac.15.11 guntas in Sy.No.145 situated at Wadagaon Village, Indravalli Mandal, Adilabad district was transferred in favour of appellant No.1. Such transfer of ownership in respect of immovable property is not permissible in law. 1 (1981) 2 APLJ 260 2 (2019) 6 SCC 474 ::5::
13. Admittedly, the Regulation was amended with effect from 03.02.1970 and thereafter, the sale deed was executed in favour of appellant No.1 by respondent No.4 in respect of the subject lands on 29.04.1970. Therefore, the authorities under the Act and the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the immovable property of a value more than Rs.100/- cannot be transferred by unregistered document.
14. No case for interference with the orders passed by the authorities under the Act as well as by the learned Single Judge is made out.
15. In the result, the intra court appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 04.09.2023 ES