THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.28399 of 2009 Between:
1. Mejuri Narayana and another PETITIONERS AND
1. Joint Collector, Sri Pottisreeramulu Nellore District at Nellore, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for 4th respondent.
2. Petitioners pray for Certiorari to call for the records connected to proceedings in Case No.E3/2188/08, dated 21.11.2009 of 1st respondent and to quash the same, as illegal and unconstitutional.
3. This issue arises under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners applied for regularisation of agreement of sale dated 22.09.1984 under Section 5A of the Act. The Tahsildar, Nellore Mandal 3rd respondent herein, through order dated 25.11.2005 regularised the agreement of sale dated 22.09.1984. The 4th respondent filed appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent through proceedings Rc.I.No.2375/2005, dated 16.10.2006 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, 4th respondent filed revision under Section 4 of the Act before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent through the impugned order allowed the revision setting aside the grant of pattedar passbooks and title deeds in favour of petitioners. Hence the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner while assailing the findings recorded in the impugned order, fairly states that in view of the principle of law laid down by this Court in Konkana Ravinder Goud v.
[1]
Bhavanarishi Cooperative House Building Society , the subject document is not one of the documents covered by Section 5A of the Act and regularisation is not available.
5. The document dated 22.09.1984 is admittedly agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by 4th respondent in favour of writ petitioners. Having regard to the authoritative pronouncement referred to above, the writ petition is dismissed however by adding one more reason to the already set aside orders of 2nd and 3rd respondents.
6. Except the above no other point has been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
S.V. BHATT, J.
19th December, 2014 Js.
[1] 2003 (6) ALT 1 (D.B)