THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 1094 OF 2014 Date of Judgment: 16.6.2014 Between:
G. Sakkubayamma and others …Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 1094 OF 2014 ORDER:
In this case a vacate stay petition is filed by the fourth respondent. With the consent of both sides, the main writ petition itself is heard and finally disposed of.
The writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.12.2013 passed by the first respondent under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”).
It was claimed by the petitioners that they had purchased land admeasuring Ac.2-22 guntas in Sy.No. 60/Part situated at Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district under an unregistered sale deed from their vendor Khaja Shakir Hussain and on their approaching the third respondent, they were granted a certificate under Section 13-B of the Act, dated 9.9.1997 in File No. B/1087/97 with respect to the aforesaid land. The fourth respondent, on coming to know of the same, made a complaint to the Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh which was forwarded to the first respondent and the matter was taken up as a suo motu revision by the first respondent. The fourth respondent claimed before the first respondent that he had purchased land of 1068 sq. yards in Sy.No. 60/A situated at Karmanghat village in the year 2002 through G.P.A holder K. Ramesh Reddy from Khaja Shakir Hussain and that he constructed a compound wall and initiated some litigations on account of encroachments etc.
While the certificate under Section 13-B of the Act was questioned on various grounds including several procedural irregularities in granting the said certificate, the learned Joint Collector-first respondent examined the matter, heard arguments on both sides and ultimately allowed the revision inter alia holding that the said certificate under Section 13-B of the Act was, not only issued in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 5-A of the Act, but also has no legal sanctity in view of the entries existing in the pahanies. Aggrieved by the said order allowing the revision petition, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
By order dated 21.1.2014, while permitting the respondents to file counter-affidavits, the impugned order was suspended pending further orders and the said order is now ought to be vacated by filing a vacate stay petition by the fourth respondent.
Though I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits of the matter, it cannot be disputed that the land in question is located in Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district which is part of twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and is an urban land. The definition of land for the purpose of application of the Act is given under Section 2 (4) of the Act and it reads as under, “Land” means land which is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, including horticulture but does not include land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes.”
The above definition by itself would establish that any land used exclusively for non-agriculture purpose falls out side the purview of the Act. It is not in dispute that the title of fourth respondent is traced to his predecessor’s sale deed dated 13.8.1990 which shows that the plots in the layout were sold and the present disputed land falls within the said plots and hence obviously the lands are non-agriculture land and out side the purview of the Act. In these circumstances, the third respondent could not have granted certificate under Section 13-B of the Act and the first respondent has rightly set aside the same, though not on the aforesaid ground. Since the Act itself has no application to the land in question, no interference with the impugned order is warranted, but for the reasons mentioned above, the parties are left with liberty to approach the competent court of law, if so advised.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 16.6.2014 KR