IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26477 of 2007 Between: Alishetty Chandrashekar S/o.Eswaraiah R/o.Vinayakanagar, Nizamabad Nizamabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District 3 The Mandal Revenue officer, Nizamabad Nizamabad District 4 Sri Lakshmikantha Rao S/o.Govinda Rao R/o.Khanapur, Nizamabad Mandal, Nizamabad District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ one in the nature of writ of certiorari and after calling for the records in case No.A3/4681/2006 dated 26.3.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent and the order No.D2/1213/2007 dated 7.11.2007 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently declare that the petitioner is the rightful owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.N.232 Acres 2.15 gts Sy.No.235 Acres 1.39 gts Sy.No.262 Ac.2.15 gts total Ac.6.29 gts situate at Khanapur village Sivar, Nizamabad Mandal, Nizamabad District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Acs.6.29 guntas of land in S.Nos.232, 235 and 262 of Khanapur Village, Nizamabad Mandal, from the fourth respondent under an unregistered sale deed dated 28.02.1982. It is stated that he was issued rythwari passbook for the said lands by the revenue authorities on 3.10.1988 certifying his possession and enjoyment. The petitioner made an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad, the third respondent herein, with a request to validate the transaction covered by the unregistered document dated 28.02.1982. The third respondent, in turn, validated the sale in favour of the petitioner and issued proceedings dated 18.12.2001 in Form No. 13(b) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The fourth respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, the second respondent herein, feeling aggrieved by the proceedings dated 18.12.2001. Through his order, dated 26.03.2007, the second respondent allowed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act, which was dismissed on 7.11.2007. Hence this writ petition. Respondents 5 to 11, who have said to have purchase the land from the fourth respondent, got themselves impleaded in the writ petition. Sri V. Vishwanatham, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal preferred by the fourth respondent before the second respondent was barred by limitation and that there was no factual basis for the second respondent to set aside the proceedings dated 18.12.2001. Sri T. Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 11 submits that one of the basic requirements for the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act is that the alleged transferor has to be issued notice and in the instant case no such notice was issued. He further contends that the appeal was presented immediately after the fourth respondent came to know about the orders said to have been passed by the third respondent. The first objection raised by the petitioner is about the limitation in filing the appeal before the second respondent. In this regard, it needs to be noticed that the fourth respondent was neither issued notice by the third respondent nor did he figured anywhere in the proceedings. Obviously because he was not aware of the proceedings, he could not present the appeal within time. Whatever be the rigor of law of limitation vis-à-vis the person, who figures as a party to the original or basic proceedings, a different approach needs to be adopted where an individual, who is aggrieved by the proceedings before an authority, was not made a party. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to agree with the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Section 5-A of the Act confers extraordinary powers upon the Mandal Revenue Officer to validate the transactions, which are otherwise incomplete and imperfect. In a given case, even a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale or unregistered sale deed, we have become time bared. Certain facilities have been created for validation of such transactions. One of the basic requirements is that the alleged transferor must be put on notice. Not only this is a requirement under the principles of natural justice but also constitutes compliance with the civil law. A transaction of sale cannot be dealt with in the absence of the vendor. Admittedly, the third respondent did not issue notice to the fourth respondent before he validated the sale in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent called for records and came to a specific conclusion that the prescribed procedure was not followed. However, he just left the matter at that, as though the entire controversy has been given a quietus. If the procedure was not followed by the third respondent, the matter has to be remanded to him for fresh consideration after issuing notice to the affected parties. Therefore, though the conclusions arrived at by the third respondent for setting aside the proceedings dated 18.12.2001 can be upheld, a further direction needs to be issued by remanding the matter to the third respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. Hence the writ petition is partly allowed upholding the order passed by respondents 2 and 3, setting aside the proceedings dated 18.12.2001 of the third respondent. However, the matter is remanded to the third respondent for fresh consideration and disposal after issuing notice to respondents 4 to 11. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 25th February, 2009 Js.