THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5237 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed an application before the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 4th respondent herein under Section 5-A of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short ‘the ROR Act’) with a request to regularize the sale transaction said to have been entered with the deceased-1st respondent by name Subhash Reddy in his favour. The 4th respondent passed an order, dated 28.12.1990, validating the sale. The 1st respondent filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent against the order of validation. Initially, the appeal was dismissed for default. After the death of Subhash Reddy, his wife Lalitha Reddy filed an application to set aside the order of dismissal. The application was allowed and ultimately, through an order dated 03.01.2009, the 3rd respondent allowed the appeal. The petitioner filed revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 2nd respondent herein. The revision was dismissed on 01.09.2009. Hence, this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard Sri Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 2 to 4. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act was allowed on 28.12.1990. About eight years thereafter, the 1st respondent filed appeal under Section 5-B of the Act. Initially, the appeal was dismissed and thereafter, it was restored and examined on merits. A perusal of the order, dated 03.01.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent discloses that the file, through which the 4th respondent passed the order, dated 28.12.1990 was not even available. The allegation made by the 1st respondent that he was not even issued any notice of hearing before the order, dated 28.12.1990, was passed, remained unrebutted. The 3rd respondent was left with no alternative except to allow the appeal. The 2nd respondent confirmed the same. Even now the petitioner is not able to establish that the 4th respondent issued notice to the 1st respondent before validating the sale. A serious objection raised by the 1st respondent that the so-called document is incapable of being regularized cannot be verified, inasmuch as the entire file is said to have been lost. Under these circumstances, the order of validation cannot be sustained and respondents 2 and 3 have taken correct view of the matter. If the petitioner is so advised, he can initiate proceedings before the 4th respondent afresh, in case, the original document is available and if the transaction is otherwise capable of being validated. Therefore, the civil revision petition is disposed of upholding the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3, through which the order of validation is set aside and it is left open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies in accordance with law. Thee shall be no order as to costs. __________ 02.08.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5237 of 2009 Date: 02.08.2010 JSU