THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 13133 of 2008 O r d e r: The petitioners claim that they are the owners and possessors of their ancestral property in an extent of Ac.3- 04 guntas in Sy. No. 176 of Wanaparthy Sivar. Out of the said extent, the petitioners state that their elders sold an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas to one Sri. P. Ramaswamy under a registered sale deed. The petitioners state that after the death of their mother, an extent of Ac.1-17 guntas was mutated in the name of petitioner No.3, and likewise, after the death of their father, an extent of Ac.1-17 guntas was mutated in the name of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, and that after mutation, they obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds also from respondent No.1, namely the Tahsildar, Wanaparthy Mandal. While so, the petitioners state that respondent No.2 stating that he has an agreement of sale dated 20.05.1994 in respect of the property in question, ﬁled an application in Form-X under Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 read with Rule 22(2) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 before respondent No.1 praying to regularize the alienation made in his favour under the said agreement of sale. The petitioners state that having regard to the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 77, Revenue (S.S.I) Department, dated 25.01.2008, amending sub-rule 2 of Rule 22 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, the application ﬁled by respondent No.2 is not maintainable, since no proceedings can be initiated for validation under Section 5-A of the said Act. The petitioners state that they have already ﬁled objections as to the maintainability of the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 in File No.A/ROR/1347 of 2008, and it is their grievance that respondent No.1, without considering the same, is going ahead with the enquiry. Hence, they ﬁled the present writ petition to declare the proceedings in File No.A/ROR/1347 of 2008 on the ﬁle of respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.1. The case of the petitioners in short is that they are the owners and possessors of the land in question, and that they have not sold any land to respondent No.2, much less under the alleged agreement of sale. Therefore, it is their case that the application made by respondent No.2 in Form- X under Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 read with Rule 22(2) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 before respondent No.1 praying to regularize the alienation made in his favour under the said agreement of sale, as initiated in File No.A/ROR/1347 of 2008, having regard to the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 77, Revenue (S.S.I) Department, dated 25.01.2008, amending sub-rule 2 of Rule 22 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, are not maintainable. Admittedly, the petitioners have submitted their objections to the said request made by respondent No.2, and they are yet to be considered by respondent No.1. As of today, there is no order passed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2. Since the petitioners have already raised objection as to the maintainability of the very proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1, certainly respondent No.1 consider the same. Merely because respondent No.1 has placed the matter for enquiry, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 would not consider the said objection. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to consider the objection raised by the petitioners as to the maintainability of the very proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 as preliminary issue before proceeding further in the matter. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 28th July, 2008 KSR