THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 2965 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the proceedings of 3rd respondent – Joint Collector in Case No.D5/5494/2000 dated 31.8.2004 including the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy District East in File No.AS/5426/1998 dated 24.7.2000 in respect of land in Sy.No.252 admeasuring Ac.12-05 guntas, situated at Attivelli Mandal, Rangareddy District as arbitrary and illegal. According to petitioners, they are the absolute and exclusive owners of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.12-05 guntas, situated in Sy.No.252 at Athvelly village, Medchal Mandal, Rangareddy District. The said property is ancestral property and their forefather Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin who died on 13.1.1980 was shown as pattadar. After his death, petitioners have succeeded to the said property along with their mother and their mother Smt. Kareemunnissa also died in the year 1991. Thus, petitioners alone are the absolute owners and possessors of the said property. While that being so, one T. Laxmi d/o T. Samba Reddy r/o Athvelly village, Rangareddy District got her name incorporated in the records on the basis of an unregistered sale deed. Therefore, petitioners wanted the said entries to be rectified. Since 1st respondent - M.R.O. rejected the case of the petitioners for such rectification, they have filed appeal before 2nd respondent - R.D.O. 2nd respondent also confirmed the order passed by 1st respondent and dismissed the appeal. Further aggrieved thereby, petitioners carried the matter in revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 before 3rd respondent – Joint Collector. 3rd respondent also confirmed the order passed by 2nd respondent. Hence this writ petition. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice the order dated 31.8.2004 passed by 3rd respondent – Joint Collector, which reads as under: “Perused the material papers submitted by both the parties and also verified the lower Court records. It is seen that the original pattadar Sri Gulam Mohiuddin executed an unregistered sale deed dated 3.8.1976 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.252 extent 12-05 acres situated at Athvelly village in Medchal Taluq in favour of Sri Vemula Narsimha Reddy. The said unregistered sale document was regularized and validated by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal under Section 5-A of the ROR Act by his order dated 8.4.1996 in File No.C/18/1989 by following the due procedure. The said regularization of unregistered sale deed was challenged in an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R. East Division and the same was dismissed by order dated A2/5426/1998 dated 24.7.2000 with observation that appellants may seek remedies in the competent Civil Court. In view of the above circumstances and the facts of the case, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R. East Division dated 24.7.2000 in File No.AW/5426/1998 PASSED in appeal against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal No.B/4718/1998 dated 27.10.1998. As such the revision is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. In result the revision is dismissed”. From the above, it is clear that the unregistered sale deed was executed by Sri Gulam Mohiuddin in favour of Sri Vemula Narsimha Reddy on 3.8.1976 and the same was regularized and validated by the M.R.O. under Section 5-A of the ROR Act vide order dated 8.4.1996 in File No.C/18/1989 and, therefore, the entries were made in favour of V. Narsimha Reddy long ago. When it was sought to be challenged, the R.D.O. rejected the case of the petitioner saying that there is some dispute as to title between the parties and the appellants may seek remedies in the competent Civil Court. I am of the considered opinion that the R.D.O. has not committed any error in observing that the appellants may seek remedies in the competent civil Court and, therefore, the revision filed by the petitioners was rightly dismissed by 3rd respondent – Joint Collector. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 22-12-2010. MVB.