Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 397 (AP)

Santhosh Verma v. Joint collector

2011-04-30

B.PRAKASH RAO, G.BHAVANI PRASAD, G.ROHINI

body2011
JUDGMENT : G. Rohini, J. This matter is listed before us pursuant to the Order of Reference, dated 23.10.2008 made by a learned Single Judge in view of a conflict between two Division Bench decisions i.e., M.B. RATNAM v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.R. DISTRICT ( 2003 (1) ALD 826 (DB) and K.R. GOUD v. BHAVANARISHI CO-OP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY ( 2003 (5) ALD 654 (DB) with regard to the maintainability of the Revision Petition against an order under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘ROR Act’). 2. For proper appreciation of the question that requires consideration by this Bench, it is necessary to notice the facts in brief. 3. The 1st petitioner executed an unregistered Agreement of Sale, dated 25.7.1980 in favour of the petitioners 2 to 4 in respect of Ac.0-28.12 guntas (3.403 square yards) of land situated in Sy.No.20 of Habsiguda, Rangareddy District and delivered possession. On 21.7.1989 the petitioners 2 to 4 made an application under Section 5-A of the ROR Act as amended by A.P. Act 1 of 1989 for validation of the transaction dated 25.7.1980. After due enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a validation certificate dated 9.5.1990. Against the said order, the respondents 2 to 7 herein filed a Revision Petition on 07.07.1995 under Section 9 of the ROR Act before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District. The said Revision Petition was allowed by order dated 18.2.2002 thereby setting aside the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a Certiorari to quash the order dated 18.2.2002 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 4. It is primarily contended by the petitioners that the Joint Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act as amended by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 with effect from 31.10.1993 against the validation order dated 9.5.1990 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. 5. 4. It is primarily contended by the petitioners that the Joint Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act as amended by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 with effect from 31.10.1993 against the validation order dated 9.5.1990 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, while denying the plea that the 1st petitioner alienated the land in question to the petitioners 2 to 4 under an un-registered Agreement of Sale, dated 25.07.1980 and delivered possession, it is contended that the so-called unregistered agreement had been fabricated for the purpose of the present case. It is further contended that in fact the land in question was a non-agricultural land and therefore the proceedings for validation of the transaction under Section 5-A of the ROR Act were not maintainable at all. It is also contended that the Joint Collector after perusing the material available on record and after hearing both the parties while recording a finding that it was a non-agricultural land had rightly set aside the validation order made under Section 5-A of the Act. While pointing out that whereas the alleged agreement of sale was executed on 25.7.1980, the petitioners sought for validation under Section 5-A only in the year 1989, it is also contended that there were no bona fides on the part of the petitioners. 6. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.B. RATNAM’S case (1 supra) in support of his contention that the Joint Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Petition under Section 9 as amended with effect from 31.10.1993 against the order dated 9.5.1990 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the Act. Another Division Bench judgment in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) was also brought to the notice of the leaned Single Judge. Observing that there is a conflict between the above said two decisions, the learned Single Judge by order dated 23.10.2008 referred the matter for consideration by Full Bench. That is how the matter is placed before us. 7. Another Division Bench judgment in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) was also brought to the notice of the leaned Single Judge. Observing that there is a conflict between the above said two decisions, the learned Single Judge by order dated 23.10.2008 referred the matter for consideration by Full Bench. That is how the matter is placed before us. 7. We have heard Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri P. Venugopal, the leaned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7 and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent. 8. Prior to the enactment of ROR Act, 1971, the A.P. (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli was in force. It provided for preparation and maintenance of the Record of Rights in Telangana Area of the State. As there was no corresponding enactment providing for such statutory record of rights applicable to the Andhra area of the State, the matter was considered by the Revenue Consultative Committee and in the light of the recommendations of that Committee, it was decided to implement in Andhra area of the State also a scheme for preparation and maintenance of record of rights. Accordingly, a fresh legislation applicable throughout the State for the preparation and maintenance of the record of rights was proposed to be enacted. Thus the ROR Act, 1971 was enacted thereby repealing The A.P. (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli. 9. As per Section 3 of ROR Act, 1971 the recording authority shall maintain a record of rights in all lands in every village in that area containing particulars specified therein. The fact of completion of record of rights in respect of the village shall be notified in A.P. Gazette and thereafter any person affected by an entry in such record of rights may apply for rectification of the entry in which event after making necessary enquiry, a decision will be given on such application directing rectification of the record of rights which shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final. That apart, as per Section 4 of the ROR Act any person acquiring by succession, survivorship and etc., any right as owner, pattadar/mortgagee shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right to the Recording Authority. That apart, as per Section 4 of the ROR Act any person acquiring by succession, survivorship and etc., any right as owner, pattadar/mortgagee shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right to the Recording Authority. On receipt of such intimation, the recording authority shall determine as provided under Section 5 and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. Against such order passed by the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie under Section 5 (5) of the ROR Act to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the decision of the appellate authority shall be final subject to the provisions of Section 9 providing for a remedy of Revision to the Collector. As per Section 6 of the ROR Act, every entry in the Record of Rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 7 declared that the record of rights shall be open for inspection of the public and that they are also entitled to obtain certified copies of the record of rights or extracts therefrom. Section 8 of the ROR Act bars suits against the Government or their officers in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record of rights. Section 9 provided for a remedy of revision. As per Section 9 the Collector was empowered either suo motu or on an application made to him to call for and examine the record of rights prepared or maintained under Section 3 or any order passed or proceedings taken by any recording authority or an appellate authority to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any such decision. 10. The ROR Act underwent several amendments from time to time. One of the major amendments was by A.P. Act 11 of 1980 which provided for issuing pass books to the ryots to enable them to secure loans on the basis of the entries in the pass book without requiring to approach the village officers and others every time. 10. The ROR Act underwent several amendments from time to time. One of the major amendments was by A.P. Act 11 of 1980 which provided for issuing pass books to the ryots to enable them to secure loans on the basis of the entries in the pass book without requiring to approach the village officers and others every time. Section 6-A was accordingly inserted by Act 11 of 1980 providing for issue of pass book and title deed to the owner, pattadar, mortgagee or tenant of any land on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. The entries in the pass book will be based on the entries in the record of rights prepared under the provisions of the ROR Act and the same may be corrected either suo motu or on an application made to the Mandal Revenue Officer in the manner prescribed. 11. Another important amendment was by A.P. Act 1 of 1989 under which Section 5-A was inserted enabling a person in occupation of the land by virtue of an alienation or transfer effected otherwise than by registered document to apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid. On receipt of such application, the Mandal Revenue Officer, after due enquiry, if satisfied that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of The A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973; The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976; The A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959; and The A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 shall require the alienee or the transferee to deposit an amount equal to the registration fee and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. On deposit of such amount by the alienee or the transferee, the Mandal Revenue Officer under sub-section(4) of Section 5-A shall issue a certificate to the alienee or transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate. As per subsection (5) of Section 5-A, on production of the said certificate, the recording authority shall make an entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property. As per subsection (5) of Section 5-A, on production of the said certificate, the recording authority shall make an entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property. Section 5-A as inserted by Amendment Act 1 of 1989 came into force w.e.f. 9.6.1989. 12. However no provision was made by Amendment Act 1 of 1989 providing for an appeal or revision against the regularization ordered by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A. Such remedies came to be inserted into ROR Act after about 4 years by A.P. Act No.9 of 1994 w.e.f. 31.10.1993. By Act 9 of 1994 Section 5-B has been added providing for an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer against the orders passed under Section 5-A (4) by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Simultaneously Section 9 was also substituted expressly conferring the power of Revision on the Collector against the orders passed under Section 5-A as well as Section 5-B of the ROR Act. 13. As there was no express provision for revision against the order made by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the ROR Act prior to substitution of Section 9 by A.P. Act 9 of 1994, a question arose in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) as to whether the Joint Collector could have exercised powers under Section 9 as amended by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 to set aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer passed on 18.12.1991 under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. 14. In the said case, the Mandal Revenue Officer in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5-A of the ROR Act granted certificates dated 18.12.1991 under Section 5-A(4) of the ROR Act. On 3.4.1997 the Joint Inspector General (Registration & Stamps), Hyderabad Range addressed a letter to the Collector, Rangareddy District with copies to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Commissioner, SSL Records; Additional Director, A.C.B. (Telangana); the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, etc., with a request to take appropriate steps to suspend the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 18.12.1991 and to initiate suitable disciplinary action against the concerned officer for allegedly flouting the provisions of the A.P. Record of Rights Act, 1971 and the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The Joint Collector, Rangareddy treated the information supplied by the Joint Inspector General (Registration & Stamps) as a Revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act and after due enquiry, by order dated 5.3.2001 while setting aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 18.12.1991, directed restoration of the entries in the revenue records as they existed prior to the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The said order of the Joint Collector was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.8558 of 2001. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 16.7.2002 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Joint Collector holding that the Joint Collector had no revisional power under Section 9 in relation to the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer prior to the substitution of Section 9 by the Amendment Act No.9 of 1994 w.e.f. 31.10.1993. When the matter was carried in appeal, the Division Bench did not agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal was allowed and it was held in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) that the Collector under Section 9 of the ROR Act in unamended form had unlimited revisional power enabling and empowering him to call for and examine ‘any record of right’ prepared or maintained under the Act which would also include any such order or proceedings having the effect of amending or altering the record of right and therefore even under Section 9 as it stood prior to A.P. Act 9 of 1994 the Collector could exercise the revisional power against an order made by Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the Act. 15. In the earlier Division Bench decision in M.B. RATNAM’S case (1 supra) a slightly different question as to the maintainability of an appeal under Section 5-B of the ROR Act against an order of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A(4) of the ROR Act which was passed prior to insertion of Section 5-B under A.P. Act No.9 of 1994 fell for consideration. 16. In the said case, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed an order on 6.2.1990 regularizing the unregistered sale transaction and issued a certificate of validation under Section 5-A (4) of the ROR Act. Pursuant thereto, necessary entries were also made in the pass books in terms of Section 5-A(5). 16. In the said case, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed an order on 6.2.1990 regularizing the unregistered sale transaction and issued a certificate of validation under Section 5-A (4) of the ROR Act. Pursuant thereto, necessary entries were also made in the pass books in terms of Section 5-A(5). On 18.12.2001 appeals were preferred under Section 5-B of the ROR Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the order dated 6.2.1990 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 6.4.2002 allowed the appeals filed under Section 5-B of the ROR Act. The said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 6.4.2002 was assailed before this Court contending inter alia that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals under Section 5-B against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 6.2.1990 under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. 17. The said writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench holding that the appeals preferred on 18.12.2001 under Section 5-B of the ROR Act against the order dated 6.2.1990 made under Section 5-A of the ROR Act were not maintainable in law since there was no right of appeal as on the date when the proceedings were initiated and the orders were passed under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. While reiterating the principle of law that the right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but it is a substantive right, the Division Bench held that since on the date when the proceedings were initiated under Section 5-A of the ROR Act or as on the date when the orders were passed by the Mandal Revenue officer on 6.2.1990 there was no right of appeal provided under Section 5-B of the ROR Act, no appeal could be entertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 18. Though it was argued by the respondents therein that the said appeal could be treated as an appeal under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the ROR Act since such right was available even when the order dated 06.02.2010 was made by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Division Bench repelled the said contention and held that Section 5(5) did not deal with updating and amending an entry in the passbook on the basis of the certificate issued under Section 5-A(4) of the Act. Thus, it was concluded that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 6.4.2002 suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction. 19. The above decision in M.B. RATNAM’S case (1 supra) was in fact cited before the Division Bench in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra). While observing that in M.B. RATNAM’S case (1 supra) the Court was dealing with the appellate powers conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officer for the first time under Section 5-B whereas the revisional powers were available to the Collector even under the unamended Section 9, it was held in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) that the Collector was competent to exercise the revisional powers against an order made under Section 5-A even under Section 9 as it stood prior to amendment by A.P. Act 9 of 1994. 20. In paras 75 & 76 of the judgment in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) it was explained as under: “We are not inclined to go into the other question of retrospectivity of the provisions, since, in our view; Section 9 was amended only when specific appellate powers were conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officer for the first time when Section 5-B was inserted by Amendment Act 9 of 1994. Prior thereto, the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A was not made appealable and rightly a Division Bench of this Court in M.B. Ratnam's case came to the conclusion that no appeal lay against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer passed prior to Act No.9 of 1994 coming into force. The revisional power conferred on the Collector under the unamended Section 9 of the Act to call for and examine any record of rights prepared or maintained under Section 3 or any order passed or proceedings taken by any recording authority or an appellate authority, in our opinion, is exhaustive and inherent inclusive of any proceedings taken under Section 5-A of the Act. To say that such revisional power by the Collector could not be exercised by him against such an order as was passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer would be contrary to the intent and object with which the powers were conferred on the Collector under unamended Section 9. To say that such revisional power by the Collector could not be exercised by him against such an order as was passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer would be contrary to the intent and object with which the powers were conferred on the Collector under unamended Section 9. It was obligatory on the part of the Collector if he was of the view that grave irregularity or illegality had crept in the record of rights requiring amendment, modification etc., to exercise powers of revision. The fact that the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A was not made appealable prior to Section 5-B was inserted by Act 9 of 1994 cannot be taken to mean that the revisional powers conferred on the Collector under the unamended Section 9 of the Act were not available to rectify the record of right. Because of the insertion of Section 5-B by the Amendment Act specific appellate power was conferred against the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the Revenue Divisional Officer, therefore, it appears that in order to be more specific and precise Section 9 was brought in the present form with the sole view to clarify the powers of revision exercisable by the Collector even against the orders passed under Section 5-A of the Act by the Mandal Revenue Officer.” 21. Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, while submitting that there was a conflict between the views expressed by the two Division Benches, vehemently contended that the interpretation given by the Division Bench in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) in effect amounted to giving retrospective operation to Section 9 as amended by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 and such retrospectivity is not permissible under law. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon KESHAVLAL JETHALAL SHAH v. MOHANLAL BHAGWANDAS AND ANOTHER ( AIR 1968 SC 1336 ), DAFEDAR NIRANJAN SINGH AND ANOTHER v. CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY (Pb) AND ANOTHER ( AIR 1961 SC 1425 ) and DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. v. INCOME-TAX COMMR., DELHI (AIR 1927 Privy Council 242). 22. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon KESHAVLAL JETHALAL SHAH v. MOHANLAL BHAGWANDAS AND ANOTHER ( AIR 1968 SC 1336 ), DAFEDAR NIRANJAN SINGH AND ANOTHER v. CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY (Pb) AND ANOTHER ( AIR 1961 SC 1425 ) and DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. v. INCOME-TAX COMMR., DELHI (AIR 1927 Privy Council 242). 22. Per contra, Sri P. Venu Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that there is no conflict between the views expressed by the two Division Benches as sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners and in fact in the later decision in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) the Division Bench while accepting the view expressed in M.B. RATNAM’S case (1 supra) had rightly held that the Collector even under the unamended Section 9 was empowered to exercise the revisional power against an order made under Section 5-A of the Act. 23. Section 9 of the ROR Act as it stood prior to amendment by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 was as under: “9. Revision: The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine any record of rights prepared or maintained under Section 3 or any order passed or proceedings taken by any recording authority or an appellate authority, to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such record, order or proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein and if any case it appears to the Collector that any such record, order or proceeding should be amended, modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no order adversely affecting any party shall be passed under this section unless he has been given an opportunity of making his representation.” (emphasis supplied) 24. By A.P. Act No.9 of 1994, Section 9 was substituted and the amended provision reads as follows: “9. By A.P. Act No.9 of 1994, Section 9 was substituted and the amended provision reads as follows: “9. Revision: The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation.” (emphasis supplied). 25. As could be seen, the Collector in exercise of revisional powers under unamended Section 9 was empowered either to examine the regularity of any record of rights prepared or maintained under Section 3 or to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made by any recording authority or an appellate authority. 26. It is apparent that Section 9 in the unamended form provided for Revision against the order passed or proceedings taken by the recording authority and appellate authority only and did not include Mandal Revenue Officer. It is only under the amended Section 9 an express provision has been made extending the revisional powers against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. 27. The expression ‘Recording Authority’ has been defined under Section 2 (10) of the ROR Act as an officer of the Revenue Department as may be notified by the Collector or the Commissioner to be the recording authority for the purpose of the ROR Act. Nothing could be placed before this Court to show that the Mandal Revenue Officer is notified as the recording authority by the Collector or the Commissioner. It is also not in dispute that Mandal Revenue Officer is not an appellate authority under any of the provisions of the ROR Act. Therefore, the Collector under the unamended Section 9 was not competent to call for and examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. 28. It is also not in dispute that Mandal Revenue Officer is not an appellate authority under any of the provisions of the ROR Act. Therefore, the Collector under the unamended Section 9 was not competent to call for and examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. 28. Since the regularisation order under Section 5-A of ROR Act was made by the Mandal Revenue Officer prior to 31.10.1993, it was argued in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) that the said order was not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 as it stood prior to amendment by A.P. Act No.9 of 1994. 29. The Division Bench in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) opined that the Collector was fully empowered even under the unamended Section 9 to exercise the revisional powers against an order passed by Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A as the effect of such order passed by Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A(4) would result in amendment / rectification of the record of right. It was held by the Division Bench in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) that the function exercisable by the recording authority under Section 5-A(5) being a function of preparing and updating of record of rights under Section 3, the revisional powers even under Section 9 in the unamended form were available against the order made under Section 5-A prior to amendment Act 9 of 1994. 30. It was also observed by the Division Bench in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) that Section 9 was substituted by Act 9 of 1994 only for the purpose of clarifying the powers of Revision exercisable by the Collector even against the orders passed under Section 5-A of the Act by the Mandal Revenue Officer. 31. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the view expressed in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) was quite contrary to the ratio laid down in M.B. RATNAM’S case (1 supra) that making of an entry in the pass book on the strength of the certificate issued under Section 5-A (4) could not be equated to that of amendment and updating of Record of Rights. It is vehemently contended by the learned Senior Counsel that Section 5-A of the ROR Act is a special provision which provides for regularisation of alienation or other transfers of land under unregistered instruments and its area of operation being totally different from preparation and updating of record of rights under Section 3 of the ROR Act, the judgment of the Division Bench in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) did not lay down correct law. 32. For proper appreciation of the above submissions, it is necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the ROR Act as they stood prior to 31.10.1993 : Sec. 3. Preparation and updating of record of rights in all lands: (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act any area, there shall be prepared and brought upto date from time to time, by the recording authority in such manner, and thereafter maintained in such form as may be prescribed, a records of rights in all lands in every village in that area and such record of rights shall contain the following particulars, namely: (a) the names of all persons who are owners, pattadars, mortgagees occupants or tenants of lands; (b) the nature and extent of the respective rights or interest of such persons and the conditions or liabilities if any, attaching thereto; (c) the rent, revenue or other amount, if any, payable by, or to any of such persons; (d) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (2) When in respect of any village the preparation of the record of rights referred to in sub section (1) is completed; the fact of such completion shall be notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette or the District Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (3) Any person affected by an entry in such record of right may, within a period of one year from the date of the notification referred to in sub section (2), apply, for rectification of the entry to such officer as may be prescribed. The said officer may, after such inquiry as may be prescribed, give his decision on such application and direct the rectification of the record of rights in accordance with such decision which shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final. Sec. 4. The said officer may, after such inquiry as may be prescribed, give his decision on such application and direct the rectification of the record of rights in accordance with such decision which shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final. Sec. 4. Acquisition of rights to be intimated: (1) Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, the partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as owner pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition, and the said Mandal Revenue Officer shall give or send a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it:- Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other persons having charge of his property shall intimate the fact of such acquisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, every registering officer appointed under the Act and registering a document relating to a transaction in land, such as sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise shall intimate the Mandal Revenue Officer of the Mandal in which the property is situate of such transaction. Explanation I:- The right mentioned above shall include a mortgage without possession and a right determined by civil court. Explanation II:- A person in whose favour a mortgage is discharged or extinguished, or a lease is determined, acquires a right within the meaning of this section. Sec. 5. Amendment and updating of Record of Rights: (1) On receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination:- Provided that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf. (2) Where the Mandal Revenue Officer has reason to believe that an acquisition of any right of a description to which Section 4 applies has taken place and of which an intimation has not been made to him under that Section and where he considers that an amendment has to be effected in the record of rights, the recording authority shall carry out the said amendment in the record of rights. (3) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub section (1) or sub section (2) issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The recording authority shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit. (4) Every order passed under this section shall be communicated to the person concerned. (5) Against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the record of rights of refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final. (6) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall have the power to correct clerical errors, if any, in the Pass Books. 33. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11 (1) of the ROR Act, the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules’) were made and it is necessary to notice some of the corresponding rules prescribing the procedure for preparation and updating of the record of rights. 34. 33. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11 (1) of the ROR Act, the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules’) were made and it is necessary to notice some of the corresponding rules prescribing the procedure for preparation and updating of the record of rights. 34. Rule 2 (g) defined ‘updating of record of rights’ as under: 2 (g).‘updating of record of rights’ means and includes in the bringing up of the record of rights upto date under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. (by later amendment in G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 15.01.1994 sub-rule (g) was substituted and sub-rule (h) was inserted defining ‘record of rights’ and ‘amendment and maintenance of record of rights in lands’ under sub-rules (g) & (h) respectively) 35. Rule 3 of the Rules provided that the Record of Rights shall be prepared and maintained in Form-I for every separate revenue village. As per Rule 4, the Commissioner shall issue whenever necessary a notification to make the record of rights upto date for the entire State or such area or areas by notification in the A.P. Gazette as well as in two daily newspapers. Rule 5 provides that the recording authority as soon as may be after the commencement of the Act for the first time and whenever a notification has been issued by the Commissioner to make the record of rights upto date, shall publish separate notices in Form-II calling upon all the persons claiming any interest in any land in the village to furnish a statement in writing in Form I-A showing the particulars of lands in which an interest is claimed and the nature of such interest. The statements of claims received in response to the said notice shall be maintained by the recording authority in Form II-A and then the recording authority shall proceed to hold an enquiry as provided under Rules 6 to 8. After due completion of enquiry, the recording authority shall pass orders under Rule 9. In respect of disputed cases the same shall be submitted by the recording authority to the Mandal Revenue Officer for disposal in due course. After due completion of enquiry, the recording authority shall pass orders under Rule 9. In respect of disputed cases the same shall be submitted by the recording authority to the Mandal Revenue Officer for disposal in due course. After completing the above said procedure, the recording authority shall prepare a draft record of rights / draft record of rights made upto date in land in the village in Form-1 and thereafter a notice in Form-III shall be published as provided in Rule 10 calling for objections. Under Rule 11 the recording authority shall hold an enquiry into all the claims received to the draft record of rights and determine whether or not the draft record of rights required to be altered. As per Rule 12 if the recording authority before completion of the above said enquiry has reason to believe that any entry made in the draft record of rights requires to be altered, such alteration shall be made after obtaining the orders of the Special Deputy Tahsildar appointed for the purpose or the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer. After completion of enquiry into the claims received against the draft record of rights, the recording authority, under Rule 13 shall confirm the draft record of rights subject to the alterations, if any, made and the record of rights so confirmed shall be the record of rights in lands in the village. As per Rule 14 the fact of completion of the preparation of the record of rights for the first time or the fact of completion of a record of rights made upto date shall be notified in the Gazette in Form-IV and also by affixture and beat of tom-tom in the village. Rule 14-A provides that after publication of the notification in Form-IV the Mandal Revenue Officer shall arrange to recast the information in Form-I into Form I-B and after that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall arrange to get the pattadar pass books prepared with reference to the entries in Form I-B and deliver the same to the persons concerned. 36. As could be seen, Rules 3 to 14-A prescribed the procedure in detail with regard to preparation and updating of record of rights from time to time as provided under Section 3 (1) & (2) of the ROR Act. 36. As could be seen, Rules 3 to 14-A prescribed the procedure in detail with regard to preparation and updating of record of rights from time to time as provided under Section 3 (1) & (2) of the ROR Act. So far as the rectification of the entries in the record of rights under Section 3 (3) is concerned, the procedure to be followed has been prescribed in Rules 15, 16 & 17. 37. Now, coming to Section 5-A of the ROR Act with which we are concerned in the present case, indisputably it is a special provision which provides for regularisation of certain alienations or other transfers of land notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act or any other law for the time being in force. As noticed above, Section 5-A has been inserted by Amendment Act 1 of 1989 with a laudable object of enabling the persons who are in occupation of land by virtue of transfers made by unregistered documents, to raise loans on such lands. 38. Section 5-A of the ROR Act and Rule 22 of the Rules which prescribed the procedure for regularisation under Section 5-A read as under: Section 5A. Regularisation of certain alienations or other transfers of lands: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, where a person is an occupant by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alienee or the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid. (2) On receipt of such application, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 as fixed by the registering officer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the basis of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as may be prescribed:- Provided that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall not require the alienee or the transferee to deposit the amount under this sub section unless he is satisfied that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. (3) Nothing contained in sub section (1) and sub- section (2) shall be deemed to validate any alienation where such alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. (4) The Mandal Revenue Officer on deposit of an amount specified in sub section (2), shall issue a certificate to the alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate and such certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act, 1908, be evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him. (5) The Recording Authority, shall on the production of the certificate issued under sub section (2) make any entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property.” Rule 22. Regularisation of certain alienations or transfers of land. (5) The Recording Authority, shall on the production of the certificate issued under sub section (2) make any entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property.” Rule 22. Regularisation of certain alienations or transfers of land. (1) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue a general Notification in Form No.IX, calling for applications from the persons who are recorded as occupants in Adangal/Pahani Patrika or in record of Rights prepared earlier by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document for declaring such alienation as valid. Such notification shall be published in the District Gazette in which the village is situated and also in the following manner, namely: (i) by affixture in the chavadi or if there is no chavadi, in any other conspicuous place of the village; (ii) by affixture on the notice boards at the Gram Panchayat office, Primary Agricultural Co operative Society and school if any; (iii) by beat of tom tom in the village; (iv) by affixture on the notice board of the Mandal Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the village; and (v) by affixture on the notice board of office of the Mandal Praja Parishad in which the village is situated. (2) The alienee or transferee shall file application in Form No.X on or before 31.10.1998 on the notification issued under sub rule (1) to the Mandal Revenue Officer, provided the alienation or transfer took place before 31-7-1989. (3) On receipt of the application under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue notice to the alienor or transferor in Form No.XI specifying therein the date on which and the time at which he proposes to enquire into the application. He shall also cause to issue a notice in Form No.XII to all other persons believed to be interested in the land specifying therein, date, time and place at which he proposes to enquire into the application. Only unregistered documents shall be considered under Section 5-A of the Act. He shall also cause to issue a notice in Form No.XII to all other persons believed to be interested in the land specifying therein, date, time and place at which he proposes to enquire into the application. Only unregistered documents shall be considered under Section 5-A of the Act. (4) On the day so appointed or any other day to which the enquiry may be adjourned by him, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall after hearing the parties and on examining their documents and witnesses, if any, and after taking such further evidence as he may consider necessary to satisfy himself that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of any the provisions of the Acts referred to in rule 9(i)(a)(iv) complete the enquiry. (5) (i) After completion of the enquiry under sub-rule (4) above, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall require the alienee or the transferee under Section 5(A) of the Act, to deposit through a challan in the treasury an amount equal to the registration fees and stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 as fixed by the registering officer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer in Form No.XIIIA, on the basis of the value of the property arrived, within the time fixed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, not exceeding one month from the date of the communication and receipt of the order: Provided that in case the Mandal Revenue Officer considers it expedient he may grant further extension of time. (ii) On the deposit of the amounts through a challan in the treasury as under Clause (i), the Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue a certificate in Form No.XIII-B as required under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act to the alienee or the transferee declaring that alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate. (iii) A copy of every such certificate shall be communicated in Form XIII-C by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Sub-Registrar having jurisdiction over the area in which the land in respect of which the Certificate has been granted is situate and the Sub Registrar shall file the certificate in the relevant registration records and index them after ensuring collection or registration fee and stamp duty from the party under Clause (i). (6) The Recording Authority shall on production of the certificate issued under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act make an entry in the Record of Rights in Forms 1 and 1B to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property from the date of the issue of the said certificate. The Recording Authority and the Mandal Revenue Officer shall make necessary entries in the Record of Rights in land in Forms 1 and 1B under proper attestation and referencing to files of the Mandal Revenue Officer. (7) Thereafter a title deed and pass book shall be issued to the occupant in the category of owner-Pattadar. 39. On a combined reading of Section 5-A and Rule 22, it is clear that the Mandal Revenue Officer after making the necessary enquiry issues a certificate in Form XIII-B to the alienee or transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate. Such certificate shall be communicated in Form XIII-C by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Sub-Registrar having jurisdiction over the area in which the land is situated. That apart, on production of the said certificate in Form XIII-B the recording authority shall make an entry in the record of rights in Forms I and I-B to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property from the date of issue of the said certificate and thereafter a title deed and pass book shall be issued to the occupant in the category of owner-pattadar. 40. As noticed above, the whole object of Section 5-A of the ROR Act is to enable a person in occupation of the land by virtue of a transfer effected by an unregistered document to get the alienation or transfer regularized so as to enable him to raise loans on such lands. For the said purpose, after due enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer will issue a certificate in Form XIII-B to the alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid and on the basis of such certificate the entry in the record of rights in Forms I and I-B wherein the alienee is shown as occupant will be substituted as the owner-pattadar. Thereafter, a title deed and pass book shall be issued to the occupant in the category of owner-pattadar. 41. There can be no dispute about the fact that the entries in the pass book are based on the entries in the record of rights prepared under the provisions of the ROR Act and every entry in the pass book must be a true reflection of entries in the record of rights. The issuance of pattadar pass book or making entries therein is always a step consequential to the record of rights prepared, brought upto date and maintained under Section 3 of the ROR Act. 42. A reading of Section 3 of the ROR Act together with the corresponding rules under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 makes it clear that Section 3 deals with (i) the preparation of a record of rights after the commencement of the Act; (ii) updating of record of rights from time to time consequent to the notification issued by the Commissioner and also maintenance of the record of rights by carrying out the correction of any mistakes in the entries and incorporation of all mutations in the respective entries on receipt of intimation of acquisition of rights by any individual. 43. It is also relevant to note that Rule 22 (6) of the Rules specifically provides that the recording authority on production of the certificate under Section 5-A(4) of the Act shall make an entry in the record of rights in Forms I and I-B to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property and such substitution in the record of rights will be carried out in the title deed and pass book. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that Form I prescribes the form of record of rights to be maintained for every separate revenue village and Form I-B prescribes the form in which the information in Form I shall be recasted after publication of the fact of completion of preparation of the record of rights for the first time or the fact of completion of the record of rights made upto date in any village. 44. 44. Having regard to the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the correction / substitution of the entry in the record of rights by the recording authority on the basis of the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A(4) undoubtedly constitutes updating / maintaining of the record of rights as provided under Section 3 of the ROR Act. 45. Since the Collector in exercise of the revisional powers under the unamended Section 9 of the ROR Act was competent to call for and examine the regularity of any record of rights prepared or maintained under Section 3, he was competent even under the unamended Section 9 to examine the regularity of the record of rights as corrected/substituted on the basis of the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A(4) of the ROR Act. 46. The Division Bench in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) was therefore right in observing that making an entry under Section 5-A(5) on the basis of the Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A(4) amounted to the preparation and updating the record of rights under Section 3 of the ROR Act. The Division Bench had also rightly declined to go into the retrospectivity of Section 9 as amended by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 in view of the conclusion that the revisional powers were available to the Collector even under unamended Section 9 of the ROR Act and that the said power included to call for and examine the regularity of the record of rights as corrected/substituted on the basis of the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A(4). 47. It is true that an order on the date it is made is final and it gives rise to vested rights. Any subsequent change in law giving rise to new right of appeal or revision is presumed not to affect the finality of the orders already made. It is also a well-settled principle of law that statutes are not to be held to act retrospectively unless a clear intention to that effect is manifested [ vide Garikapati Veeraiah v. N. Subbaiah Chowdary ( AIR 1957 SC 540 ) ]. It is also a well-settled principle of law that statutes are not to be held to act retrospectively unless a clear intention to that effect is manifested [ vide Garikapati Veeraiah v. N. Subbaiah Chowdary ( AIR 1957 SC 540 ) ]. However, in the case on hand the remedy of revision was available under ROR Act even prior to amendment by Act 9 of 1994 and the only question that required consideration is whether an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A(4) can be brought within the scope of the said remedy of Revision as it existed prior to Act 1 of 1994. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in full agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) that the Collector was competent even under unamended Section 9 to exercise the powers of revision against an order passed under Section 5-A(4) of the ROR Act which ultimately culminated into record of rights prepared / updated under Section 3 of the ROR Act. Hence the question of giving retrospective operation to Section 9 as substituted by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 did not arise at all in the present case. We are also in agreement with the view of the Division Bench that Section 9 as substituted by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 had only clarified that the powers of Revision can be exercised by the Collector not only against an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer made on an appeal under Section 5-B but also against an order of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A. 48. In KESHAVLAL JETHALAL SHAH’S case (3 supra), relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, a suit for ejectment filed under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Bombay Act’) was decreed by the trial Court in part passing a decree only to the extent of arrears of rent and permitted increases. An appeal was filed under Section 29 of the Act was dismissed on 25.2.1963. By that date, no appeal lay against any decision in appeal and therefore a Revision was filed before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 115 of CPC. While the said Revision petition was pending, the Bombay Act was amended by substituting Section 29 (2) and providing for a Revision to the High Court. By that date, no appeal lay against any decision in appeal and therefore a Revision was filed before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 115 of CPC. While the said Revision petition was pending, the Bombay Act was amended by substituting Section 29 (2) and providing for a Revision to the High Court. In exercise of the powers so conferred under Section 29 (2) as amended by Act 18 of 1965, the High Court entered upon a detailed investigation and reversed the order of the Appellate Court and decreed the suit. The matter was then carried to the Supreme Court contending that the High Court while allowing the Revision Petition exercised the jurisdiction which it did not possess. It was also contended that in the absence of an express provision giving retrospective operation to the amendment by Act 18 of 1965, the right to appeal which originally attached to the litigation should continue to govern till it is finally decided. Having regard to the fact that Section 29 (2) as amended by Act 18 of 1965 conferred upon the High Court a jurisdiction wider than the jurisdiction exercisable under Section 115 of C.P.C. for the purpose of determining whether the decision of the Appellate Court was according to law, the Supreme Court accepted the contention of the appellant and allowed the Appeal. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Supreme Court had also referred to DAFEDAR NIRANJAN SINGH’S case (4 supra) and DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY’S case (5 supra). 49. As already expressed above, since the question of retrospectivity of A.P. Act 9 of 1994 did not arise at all in the present case, the above decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have no relevance. 50. For the aforesaid reasons, in our considered opinion the Division Bench in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) had rightly held that the order passed under Section 5-A of the ROR Act prior to 31.10.1993 was also amenable to revisional powers of the Collector under Section 9 as it stood prior to amendment by A.P. Act 9 of 1994. 51. 50. For the aforesaid reasons, in our considered opinion the Division Bench in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) had rightly held that the order passed under Section 5-A of the ROR Act prior to 31.10.1993 was also amenable to revisional powers of the Collector under Section 9 as it stood prior to amendment by A.P. Act 9 of 1994. 51. In M.B. RATNAM’S case (1 supra) one of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner therein was that the appeals preferred under Section 5-B of the ROR Act as inserted by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 could be treated as appeals preferred under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act. 52. While negativing the said contention, the Division Bench held that making of an entry in the pass book on the strength of the certificate issued under Section 5-A(4) cannot be equated to that of amendment and updating of record of rights as provided for under Section 5(1) of the ROR Act. It to be noticed that in M.B. RATNAM’S case (1 supra) the controversy was only with regard to maintainability of appeal under Section 5-B of the ROR Act against an order made under Section 5-A(4) and in view of the admitted fact that Section 5-B was inserted by Act 9 of 1994 only w.e.f. 31.10.1993 and prior to that there was no provision for appeal against the order made under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, the Division Bench had rightly held that no appeal could be maintained against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer passed prior to 31.10.1993. 53. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that there is no conflict as such between the two Division Bench decisions and both have laid the correct law. 54. The Reference is answered accordingly and the matter now be placed before the appropriate Single Bench for decision on merits.