A.Parvath Reddy Died vs A. Sarojamma,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3032 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                      AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


                     Writ Appeal No.690 of 2008

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


       This intra Court appeal is directed against the order

dated 14.03.2008 passed by learned Single Judge by which

writ petition preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been

allowed. For facility of reference, parties shall be referred to

as per their rankings before the learned Single Judge.

2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that one Adupula Parvath Reddy and Kista

Reddy were owners of land measuring Acs.14.00 situate in

Survey No.27 of Balamoor Village, Balapur Mandal, Nagar

Kurnool District. A memo of settlement dated 14.02.1968

was recorded by which the aforesaid land measuring

Acs.14.00 was divided and land measuring Acs.7.00 each

was allotted to Adupula Parvath Reddy and Adupula Kista

Reddy.

3. The State Legislature enacted the Act namely the

Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural

Holdings) Act, 1973. The aforesaid two persons, namely

Adupula Parvath Reddy and Adupula Kista Reddy who

were parties to the Memorandum of Settlement filed

declarations under the Act and Adupula Parvath Reddy

was held to be non-surplus landholder whereas Adupula

Kista Reddy was held to be a surplus landholder.

Petitioners 1 and 2 surrendered the entire Acs.7.00 of land

and also surrendered Acs.1.00 which fell to the share of

Adupula Parvath Reddy.

4. The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar

Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'RoR Act',

for brevity) was amended in the year 1989 by which

Section 5A was inserted in the Act. Section 5A reads as

under:

"5-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, 26[where a person is an occupant] by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alienee or

the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid.

(2) On receipt of such application the Mandal Revenue Officer shall, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 as fixed by the registering officer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the basis of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall not require the alienee or the transferee to deposit the amount under this sub-section unless he is satisfied that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Telangana Scheduled areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall be deemed to validate any alienation where such alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural

Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Telangana Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

(4) The Mandal Revenue Officer on deposit of an amount specified in sub-section (2), shall issue a certificate to the alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate and such certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act, 1908, be evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him.

5) The Mandal Revenue Officer, shall on the production of the certificate issued under sub-section (2) make any entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property.]

(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5-A, the Tahsildar shall regularize claims of those applicants who apply not later than 31.12.2017 and have been in possession and do not have sada bainama (unregistered) document, based on enjoyment survey, local enquiry, approval of Gramsabha and it shall be limited upto Ac.5.00 gts."

Thus, from perusal of Section 5A of the RoR Act, it is

evident that the same provides for regularisation of

unregistered deeds of alienation or transfer.

5. The legal representatives of Late Adupula Parvath

Reddy filed an application before the Mandal Revenue

Officer seeking regularisation under Section 5A of the RoR

Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer thereafter passed an

order on 14.11.1994 and held as under:

In view of the above, it is decided that Sri A.Parvath Reddy, S/o Bal Reddy is rightful person to hold Ac.7.00 in Sy.No.27 situated at Mahadevpoor as per the simple partition deed dated 14.02.1968.

6. The aforesaid order passed by the Mandal Revenue

Officer was assailed before the Revenue Divisional Officer

who by an order dated 07.10.1995 affirmed the order

passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. It was held as

under:

The Mandal Revenue Officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses in the (suit) simple sale deed who have admitted that the lands was partitioned among respondent and father of 1st appellant and husband of the 2nd appellant equally. In the ceiling declaration, Sri Parvath Reddy shown that Acs.7.00 in Sy.No.27 of Mahadevpoor village was fallen to his share and which was accepted by the Tribunal.

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Balmoor has rightly decided the case in regularising the simple partition deed and implementing the same in favour of respondent. I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balmoor. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The stay granted in the reference 1st cited stands vacated.

7. The order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer

was assailed in a Revision before the Joint Collector, who

by order dated 12.11.1997 affirmed the orders passed by

the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional

Officer. The order passed by the Joint Collector was

assailed by the petitioners in the writ petition. The learned

Single Judge inter alia by placing reliance on the decision

of the Supreme Court in V.N.Saran v. Ajit Kumar Poplai 1

held that partition is not a transfer. It was further held that

the partition is not a mode of transfer as recognised under

Section 5A of the Act. The learned Single Judge quashed

the order dated 12.11.1997 passed by the Joint Collector

and granted the legal representatives of the deceased first

respondent the liberty to work out their remedies in a civil

AIR 1966 SC 432

Court. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has

been filed.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted

that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated

that the Deed in question dated 14.02.1968 is not a deed of

partition but is a deed of settlement. It is further submitted

that the petitioners did not deny the signature of Kista

Reddy on the aforesaid settlement deed. It is urged that

learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the

aforesaid deed of settlement was acted upon even by the

petitioners.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

petitioners has submitted that the unregistered

transaction, namely sale deed can only be regularised

under Section 5A of the RoR Act and the partition deed

does not amount to transfer. It is contended that the order

passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any

interference. In support of the submissions, learned

counsel for the respondents has relied on the decisions in

V.Krishnaiah v. Joint Collector 2, B.Pushpamma v. Joint

Collector 3, Smt. Chanderwati v. Lakshmi Chand 4,

V.N.Sarin (supra), Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal

Revenue Officer 5, Order passed by this Court in

W.P.No.18221 of 2009, dated 17.11.2006, Order passed

by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3284 of 1992,

dated 19.08.1992 and Judgment passed by a Division

Bench of this Court in W.A.No.755 and 756 of 2023,

dated 11.08.2023.

10. We have considered the rival submissions made on

both sides and have perused the record.

11. Under Section 5A of the RoR Act, the competent

authority can regularise an unregistered deed of transfer.

The unregistered document dated 14.02.1968 is a deed of

settlement which recognised the pre-existing parties and

therefore, the same can be treated for the purposes of

Section 5-A of the RoR Act to be transfer. The learned

Single Judge has proceeded on the assumption that the

2007 (3) ALD 391

2005 (1) ALD 260

AIR 1998 Delhi 13

2007 (6) ALD 348 (FB)

aforesaid document is a partition deed, whereas the same

is in fact a deed of settlement. Therefore, it is not necessary

for us to examine whether a deed of partition amounts to a

transfer?

12. As the authority under Section 5-A of the RoR Act

has no jurisdiction to deal with the issue of title which can

only be gone into by the civil Court. Therefore, it is clarified

that any of the observations/findings in the order dated

14.11.1994, 07.10.1995 and 12.11.1997 passed by the

Mandal Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer and

Joint Collector respectively shall not be treated as having

expressed any opinion on the question of title of the

parties. The aforesaid orders shall be construed to mean

that by the said orders, the unregistered transaction

namely the deed of settlement has been regularised.

Needless to state that it will be open for the parties to

approach the civil Court with regard to the declaration of

their title, if so advised. To the aforesaid extent, the order

passed by the learned Single Judge is modified.

13. In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

10.10.2023 Pln