THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.11210 OF 2011 ORDER: Against the very same order under challenge in this Writ Petition, the petitioners are said to have preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners shall forthwith withdraw the appeal pending before the RDO against the order impugned in this Writ Petition, and would request this court to pass orders on merits. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that they had filed an application for regularization of an unregistered sale deed dated 16.5.1960 executed in their favour by Sri Y.Linga Reddy, father/uncle of respondents 3 to 7. The Tahsildar passed an order of regularization. Aggrieved thereby respondents 3 to 7 preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent who, by order dated 1.2.2002, held that the M.R.O. did not put them on notice before effecting amendments in respect of 1-20 acres in Sy.No.6/vu situated in Medipally village and mandal; since the prescribed procedure was not followed by the M.R.O, the case was being remanded back to him to follow the proper procedure; and thereafter he should decide the case in accordance with law. The Tahsildar (erstwhile MRO), vide memo dated 16.11.2010, held that notices were not issued on respondents 3 to 7; the subject land was fallow for the past 25 to 30 years; and it was found that the sale deed was right one. He accordingly cancelled the order of the M.R.O. dated 2.7.1994 whereby Section 13-B & 13-C certificates were issued in the petitioners favour, and directed that the names of respondents herein be included in the pahanies. On the matter being remanded by the R.D.O it was obligatory on the part of the Tahsildar to issue notices forthwith to both sides, give them opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, decide whether the petitioners’ request for regularization merits acceptance or not. The fact that no notice was served on respondents 3 to 7 before the aforesaid certificates were issued in favour of the petitioners on 2.7.1994 is evident from the order of the R.D.O. dated 1.2.2002. Pursuant to the order of remand the 2nd respondent was required, in law, to adjudicate the petitioners claim, for regularization of the unregistered sale deed, under Sections 5-A and 5-B of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act and thereafter, depending on the decision taken, to carry out necessary amendments, if need be, in the records of rights. The order under challenge is not an adjudication of the petitioners claim for regularization of the unregistered sale deed. The impugned proceedings dated 16.11.2011 is set aside. The 2nd respondent shall, after putting both the petitioners and respondents on notice and after giving them opportunity of being heard, examine the petitioners claim for regularization of the unregistered sale deed; the validity of the 13-B and 13-C certificates issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 1994 on the basis of the alleged unregistered sale deed dated 16.5.1960; and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________ 28-11-2011 asp