THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13132 OF 2002 DATED 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011 BETWEEN Dr.M.V.Sudhakar and others …Petitioners And Bathula Ramchander and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13132 OF 2002 ORDER: The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent, by certificate dated 04.06.1992 regularized the unregistered sale deed dated 19.12.1987 said to have been executed in favour of the first respondent herein by one Manikonda Veera Laxmaiah in respect of Ac.2.19 guntas of land in Survey No.1033 of Shameerpet Village, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1971’). Unaware of the same, the petitioners, the sons and widow of late Manikonda Veera Laxmaiah, being aggrieved by the incorporation of the first respondent’s name in the revenue records, filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the third respondent. By his order dated 01.10.2001, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dismissed the revision. Hence, this writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 04.06.1992 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the order dated 01.10.2001 passed in revision by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Admittedly, the petitioners did not specifically challenge the regularization proceedings dated 04.06.1992 on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal, before the revisionary authority. It is their case that they were ignorant of the same and when they came to know about the incorporation of the first respondent’s name in the revenue records as the pattadar from 1990-91 onwards, mentioning a particular file reference number, they applied for a copy of the same and were informed that the said file number did not pertain to their land in Survey No.1033 of Shameerpet Village and Mandal and therefore, they filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 against the incorporation of the first respondent’s name in the revenue records. Be that as it may, the order dated 01.10.2001 passed by the revisionary authority clearly demonstrates that the issue of regularization of the first respondent’s unregistered sale deed dated 19.12.1987, allegedly executed in his favour by late Manikonda Veera Laxmaiah, was dealt with at length and it was on the basis thereof that the petitioners’ revision was rejected. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners’ specific contention that they were not given any opportunity before the said regularization, was dismissed by the revisionary authority on the ground that their names were not on record as pattadars or possessors and therefore the question of issuing notice to them did not arise. Though the petitioners placed on record evidence to show that late Manikonda Veera Laxmiah had already obtained sanction for mutation in his favour from the Tahsildar under order dated 19.04.1984 and had applied for necessary entries to be made in the revenue records under his petition dated 31.10.1986, the same was not even dealt with by the revisionary authority. Further, the understanding of the revisionary authority that no notice need be issued to the petitioners prior to the regularization of the unregistered sale deed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971, is clearly opposed to the requirements of law. Reference in this regard may be made to Rule 22(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1989’) which postulates that upon receipt of an application under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue notice to the alienor or transferor in Form-XI specifying therein the date on which and the time at which he proposes to enquire into the application. Admittedly, no such notice was issued in the present case by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal, prior to the regularization of the unregistered sale deed dated 19.12.1987. Reference in this regard may be made to KONKANA RAVINDER GOUD v. BHAVANARISHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY, HYDERABAD[1], wherein a Division Bench of this Court affirmed that under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1989 the Mandal Revenue Officer was required to issue notice to the alienor or transferor in Form-XI and failure to issue such notice vitiates the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer being in violation of the principles of natural justice. That being so, the regularization proceedings dated 04.06.1992 passed in violation of the statutory procedure and the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. Though the regularization proceedings dated 04.06.1992 were not subjected to challenge before the revisionary authority and are directly assailed in this writ petition, once it is established on facts that the same were in violation of the statute and also the rule of ‘audi alteram partem’, this Court need not relegate the petitioners to the statutory remedy and would be justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 01.10.2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in exercise of revisionary jurisdiction and also the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in File No.B/1342/91 dated 04.06.1992. Needless to state, any action taken pursuant to the illegal regularization of the unregistered sale deed dated 19.12.1987 under proceedings dated 04.06.1992 shall stand nullified. The revenue authorities shall cause necessary modification in the revenue records to that effect. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011. VGSR/PGS [1] 2003 (6) ALT 1 (DB)