THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 3456 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 23.03.1993, issued by the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Medak District, and the consequential orders of the 2nd respondent- Joint Collector, Medak, dated 22.12.2007. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 2.05 gts. in Sy. No. 340/AA situated at Perur Village, Medak Mandal and District, having purchased the same in the year 1982 from one Potha Reddy, under a registered sale deed, for valid sale consideration. He states that the 5th respondent herein fabricated an unregistered sale deed showing as if he purchased the subject land from the petitioner, and approached the 4th respondent herein, the Mandal Revenue Officer, under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking regularization of purchase/transaction in his favour. That the 4th respondent, without issuing any notice and without verifying the genuineness and bona fides of the unregistered said sale deed, alleged to have been executed by him, issued regularization order/certificate dated 23.03.1993 in Form-13(B) under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the 3rd respondent herein-Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak, under Section 5-B of the Act, and the said appeal was allowed on 24.05.2002. Thereupon, the 5th respondent preferred revision before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, who dismissed the same on 26.08.2006. Assailing the dismissal of revision, the 5th respondent preferred a writ petition in W.P. No. 21734 of 2006 before this Court, and this Court, in the light of the settled legal position that the Act did not provide any right of appeal against the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer prior to coming into force of Section 5-B of the Act with effect from 31.10.1993, held that it is always open to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, by filing revision petition, if he is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the Act, in favour of the 5th respondent herein, and accordingly set aside the orders of the 2nd respondent, dated 26.08.2006, impugned therein, and allowed the writ petition of the 5th respondent. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed revision petition before the 2nd respondent, against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 23.03.1993. The 2nd respondent, having considered the rival contentions of the parties and the matter in detail, held that the Mandal Revenue Officer, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and based on the statement which is purported to have been given by the petitioner, has regularized the sale, that there are over-writings on the xerox copy of the alleged sale deed relied on by the 5th respondent, which is available on the file of Mandal Revenue Officer, as regards the date of its execution and that the original copy thereof is neither available on the file of Mandal Revenue Officer nor is made available before him, that unless the genuineness of said sale deed and signature of the executant thereof are established, no justification can be done to either of the parties and that as per the executive orders, Revenue Department is not competent to decide the genuineness of the sale deed and signatures thereon, and he accordingly disposed of the revision with a direction to both parties to seek redressal of their grievance in a competent Civil Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, contending that the 2nd respondent, having held that the Mandal Revenue Officer regularized the sale without issuing notice to the petitioner and that there are over-writings on the xerox copy of the alleged sale deed, relied on by the 5th respondent, ought to have set aside the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and, without exercising the revisional power vested in him under the Act, the 2nd respondent erred in directing the parties to approach the competent Civil Court. The 5th respondent filed counter-affidavit, denying the allegations made by the petitioner and supporting the impugned order of the 2nd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. As can be seen from the rival contentions of the parties and the material on record, it is clear that there is serious dispute as regards the genuineness of the unregistered sale deed relied on by the 5th respondent and under which he claims to have purchased the subject land from the petitioner. The petitioner seriously disputes the genuineness of the said sale deed contending that the said document is a fabricated one and the signatures that are available on it are not of him. He contends that the Mandal Revenue Officer, without considering the same and without issuing any notice to him, and based on a statement dated 03.03.1993 alleged to have been given by him, admitting the sale and agreeing for regularization in favour of the 5th respondent, issued regularization proceedings, which is unsustainable. In fact, the 2nd respondent, in the impugned order found that the Mandal Revenue Officer, without issuing any notice and merely based on the statement purported to have been given by the petitioner herein, has regularized the sale in favour of the 5th respondent. He further found that there are certain over-writings on the xerox copy of the sale deed as regards the date of its execution and that the original said sale deed is neither available on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer nor was made available to him. The 2nd respondent having categorically held that the Mandal Revenue Officer, has passed the regularization order in favour of the 5th respondent without issuing notice to the petitioner, in that principles of natural justice are violated, ought to have set aside the order of Mandal Revenue Officer, on that ground alone. However, without doing so, he simply directed the parties to seek redressal of their grievance, namely genuineness of the alleged sale deed and the signatures existing thereon, in a competent Civil Court, which in my considered opinion is improper. For the above reasons, the order dated 22.03.1993 passed by the 4th respondent in proceedings No. E/939/93 and the order 22.12.2007 of the 2nd respondent are set aside and both parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court, for redressal of their grievances. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 3rd December, 2010 IBL