Harikishan Agarwal Vs. Govt. of A.P. Rep. by Its Secretary, Revenue Department and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderl. narasimha reddy, j.1. the petitioner feels aggrieved by the memo, dated 13.10.2008, issued by the district registrar, moosapet, hyderabad, the third respondent herein.2. the petitioner claims to have purchased acs.18.00 of land in survey nos. 54/2 and 56/1 of hafeezpet village, serilingampally mandal, ranga reddy district, through documents, dated 14.04.1966 and 22.05.1967, from n. veeraiah and others. in relation to the same property, one smt. m.e. prabhakar approached the third respondent, with a request to validate an agreement of sale, dated 27.12.1993. on collecting a sum of rs. 2,47,500/-, vide challan, dated 11.10.2006, the third respondent issued proceedings, dated 11.10.2006, validating the document purporting to be under sections 40, 19a and 18 of the indian stamp act.3. the petitioner submitted a representation before the third respondent alleging that respondents 4 and 5 have played fraud upon him (the third respondent), inasmuch as even according to respondents 4 and 5, smt. m.e. prabhakar died on 02.01.1999. through the impugned memo, dated 13.10.2008, the third respondent informed the petitioner that he has to seek redressal of grievance in a civil court of law.4. heard sri j.prabhakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned government pleader for revenue for respondents 1 to 3, sri s. srinivas reddy, the learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and sri i.v. radha krishna murthy, the learned counsel for respondent no. 5.5. it is just un-understandable as to how the third respondent has chosen to validate an agreement of sale. such powers are conferred only upon the revenue authorities. initially, it was under section 50-b of the andhra pradesh (telangana area) land revenue act and now it is under section 5-a of the andhra pradesh rights in land and pattadar pass books act, 1971. there is no provision either under the stamp act or under the registration act, which empowers any authorities thereunder, to validate the document, witnessing any transaction.6. the third respondent has, however, chosen to validate an agreement of sale, after collecting certain amount. the provisions of law mentioned therein have absolutely no relevance for the steps taken by the third respondent. whatever may have been the justification for him in undertaking such an exercise, at least, when the petitioner brought to his notice that the person, at whose instance the application for validation was made, was non-existent, he ought to have verified the matter, may be by issuing notice to the persons, concerned. he flatly refused to look into the matter and on the other hand, required the petitioner to seek remedy in a court of law. the whole approach of the third respondent reflects a semblance of irresponsibility on his part.7. be that as it may, once it emerges that the third respondent is not vested with the power to validate the document, the proceedings, dated 11.10.2006, do not have any legal basis. though the writ petition is not directed against the said proceedings, once it emerges that the proceedings cannot be sustained in law, they deserve to be set aside. as a result, the impugned memo virtually becomes superfluous.8. the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the Memo, dated 13.10.2008, issued by the District Registrar, Moosapet, Hyderabad, the third respondent herein.

2. The petitioner claims to have purchased Acs.18.00 of land in Survey Nos. 54/2 and 56/1 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through documents, dated 14.04.1966 and 22.05.1967, from N. Veeraiah and others. In relation to the same property, one Smt. M.E. Prabhakar approached the third respondent, with a request to validate an agreement of sale, dated 27.12.1993. On collecting a sum of Rs. 2,47,500/-, vide challan, dated 11.10.2006, the third respondent issued proceedings, dated 11.10.2006, validating the document purporting to be under Sections 40, 19A and 18 of the Indian Stamp Act.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation before the third respondent alleging that respondents 4 and 5 have played fraud upon him (the third respondent), inasmuch as even according to respondents 4 and 5, Smt. M.E. Prabhakar died on 02.01.1999. Through the impugned Memo, dated 13.10.2008, the third respondent informed the petitioner that he has to seek redressal of grievance in a Civil Court of law.

4. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3, Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and Sri I.V. Radha Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 5.

5. It is just un-understandable as to how the third respondent has chosen to validate an agreement of sale. Such powers are conferred only upon the revenue authorities. Initially, it was under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act and now it is under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. There is no provision either under the Stamp Act or under the Registration Act, which empowers any authorities thereunder, to validate the document, witnessing any transaction.

6. The third respondent has, however, chosen to validate an agreement of sale, after collecting certain amount. The provisions of law mentioned therein have absolutely no relevance for the steps taken by the third respondent. Whatever may have been the justification for him in undertaking such an exercise, at least, when the petitioner brought to his notice that the person, at whose instance the application for validation was made, was non-existent, he ought to have verified the matter, may be by issuing notice to the persons, concerned. He flatly refused to look into the matter and on the other hand, required the petitioner to seek remedy in a Court of law. The whole approach of the third respondent reflects a semblance of irresponsibility on his part.

7. Be that as it may, once it emerges that the third respondent is not vested with the power to validate the document, the proceedings, dated 11.10.2006, do not have any legal basis. Though the writ petition is not directed against the said proceedings, once it emerges that the proceedings cannot be sustained in law, they deserve to be set aside. As a result, the impugned Memo virtually becomes superfluous.

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.