Revenue revision cannot be entertained after inordinate unexplained delay without condonation of delay.

The petitioner claimed to have purchased Ac.0.19 guntas in Sy.No.1215/P1 and Acs.3.20 guntas in Sy.No.1214/P4 from Ahmed Hussain, the father of respondent No.6, under an unregistered sale deed dated 12.04.2003. He asserted that he had remained in possession and cultivation of the land thereafter.

Pursuant to ROR Proceedings No.551/2008 dated 16.04.2008, the petitioner’s name was entered in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in his favour.

Respondent No.6 challenged the mutation and sought cancellation of the petitioner’s pattadar passbook and title deed before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The appeal was dismissed on 18.06.2016.

Respondent No.6 thereafter filed a revision before the Joint Collector. By order dated 02.08.2017, the Joint Collector set aside the appellate order, holding that the unregistered transaction dated 12.04.2003 had not been validated in accordance with the applicable Government Orders and procedure.

Whether the regularisation of the unregistered sale transaction dated 12.04.2003 under ROR Proceedings No.551/2008 dated 16.04.2008 was contrary to the applicable Government Orders governing regularisation of unregistered transactions

Whether the Joint Collector was justified in entertaining the belated revision and setting aside the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order dated 18.06.2016 by order dated 02.08.2017

Whether the impugned revisional order was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice for want of a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

The Court applied the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, including the provisions concerning mutation, notice, appeal, civil remedies and revision, particularly Sections 5(3), 5(5), 8(2), 9 and 13-B.

Rule 22(2)(a) of the Rules framed under the Act and the Government Orders governing regularisation of unregistered transactions were also considered.

The Court held that the original cut-off date under G.O.Ms.No.1445 dated 05.12.2008 could not be applied in isolation because subsequent Government Orders extended the permissible period for regularisation, including the extension up to 31.03.2008 and subsequently up to 15.06.2016 for transactions effected before 02.06.2014.

It further applied the principle that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title, for which the proper remedy is a civil suit under Section 8(2), and relied on Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy v. Joint Collector, Cuddapah, (2009) 1 ALD 248, regarding the impermissibility of entertaining a belated statutory challenge without condonation of delay.

The Court found that the petitioner’s transaction had already been considered and acted upon by the competent revenue authorities, resulting in validation, mutation and issuance of pattadar documents.

Although respondent No.6 relied on the original cut-off date of 31.12.2000, the Court held that the subsequent Government Orders extending the period for regularisation had to be considered. Since the transaction dated 12.04.2003 fell within the subsequently extended period, its validity could not be rejected solely by applying the earlier cut-off date.

The Court also held that respondent No.6 had challenged the 16.04.2008 revenue proceedings only in 2015, after nearly seven years, and had produced no satisfactory material explaining or continuously pursuing the delay.

The Joint Collector had neither assigned cogent reasons for entertaining the belated revision nor properly dealt with the delay.

Accordingly, the revisional authority was not justified in reopening the matter and setting aside the appellate order.

It further held that the regularisation could not be invalidated merely by applying the original 31.12.2000 cut-off date, since subsequent Government Orders extended the permissible period and the petitioner’s transaction had already been acted upon by the revenue authorities.

The writ petition was allowed, the Joint Collector’s order in File No. D2/3925/2016 dated 02.08.2017 was set aside, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed. No order as to costs was made.