Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) While the said order had become final, petitioner No.1 purchased the aforesaid land admeasuring Ac.35.11 guntas in Sy.Nos.727, 731, 732 and 734 from Raghuveer Rao under a registered Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney, being document No.2928/99 dated 27.10.1999 and in the said agreement it was recited that the entire consideration of Rs.2,66,836/- was paid by the purchaser and received by the vendor and the possession of the schedule property was also handed over to him, in addition to constituting the said purchaser as lawful attorney of the vendor with full powers to deal with the property. It appears that based on the said agreement of sale, the Mandal Revenue Officer recorded the names of the petitioners under Section 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ROR Act) vide orders dated 09.09.2000 in File No.B/2109/2000. Later, the vendor of the petitioners passed away leaving behind his widow and children.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, question the said impugned order, firstly, on the ground that without preferring an appeal instead revisions petitions could not have been filed and there is no justification for the Joint Collector to invoke the revisional powers after such length of time of passing of the initial order dated 09.09.2000. Learned counsel also pointed out that apart from these revisions, the appeal field by the petitioners, against the grant of occupancy certificate in favour of Rama Rao, before Joint Collector, who, apart from being the revisional authority under Section 9 of the ROR Act, is also the appellate authority under the Inams Act, was kept pending without disposal whereas the revision petitions were disposed of. Learned counsel submits that the propriety required that the Joint Collector decided all the matters together, as the issues are interconnected and one has a bearing over the other. Learned counsel also points out that while appreciating the contentions of the respondents, the provisions under the ROR Act are clearly ignored. According to him, Section 5 of the ROR Act contemplated updating of ROR on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right to land, as contemplated under Section 4 of the ROR Act. In other words, the learned counsel submits that such right need not necessarily be as that of an owner under a registered sale deed, but includes any other right, by which the right to land is acquired, is sufficient for the purpose of seeking amendment of record of rights.

Question No.1 is answered against the petitioners.

QUESTION No.2:

13. It has already been noticed in the para 2(b) above and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the agreement of sale cum GPA equates petitioners as owners and mutation in their favour was justified. There are two decisions of this Court, which have seemingly taken different views as to whether mutation can be affected on the basis of an agreement of sale. It has already been held by the Supreme Court in SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES LTD.s case (3 supra) while considering the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and it is well settled that an agreement of sale does not confer any title. In KONKANA RAVINDER GOUDs case (5 supra) their Lordships held that under the ROR Act the word transfer is used but Section 5-A of the ROR Act is not defined. Their Lordships, therefore, considered the meaning of the word transfer as is understood in the legal sense in terms of the Transfer of Property Act and in that view, held that the agreement of sale does not amount to transfer and consequently, the regularization cannot be made under Section 5-A of the ROR Act.

ROR Act:

2(6-a) Owner means a person who has permanent and heritable rights of possession on the land, which can be alienated and includes the holder of a patta issued to him as a landless poor person.
2(7) Pattadar includes every person who holds land directly under the Government under a patta whose name is registered in the land revenue accounts of the Government as pattadar and who is liable to pay land revenue.

17. Keeping in view the definitions, particularly, under the ROR Act, as above, a person having a right to possession including an assignee from the Government would be entitled to be treated as an owner for the purpose of the ROR Act. The said definition of owner also shows that there may not be a transfer, as contemplated under the Transfer of Property Act, but if the transfer is completed otherwise than except for registration and keeping in view the definition of pattadar, which is an inclusive definition, in my view, such person would be entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 5-A of the ROR Act. The definition of owner, as above, significantly does not refer to the definition as contemplated under the Transfer of Property Act and the emphasis is on right to possession including right to alienate. In a given case, whether the agreement of sale cum GPA confers the said right so as to qualify within the definition of owner would, however, depend upon the appreciation of such documents. Hence, suffice it to find that for the purpose of ROR Act, the definition of owner may also include a person not holding a registered document in his favour but otherwise entitled to all rights to possession and alienation of the land by virtue of the completed transaction of sale except for the registration thereof.