THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.14704 and 14705 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed under similar circumstances and they arise out of similar facts. Therefore, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioners purchased certain extents of land in various survey numbers of Bhogapuram Village, Vizianagaram District, through sale deeds of the year 2004-05 from one Sri Sanyasi Raju. The fourth respondent in both the writ petitions filed applications before the Tahsildar, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, the third respondent herein, under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). Their plea was that Sri Sanyasi Raju, the fifth respondent in both the writ petitions, now represented by sixth respondent, executed unregistered sale deeds in their favour in the year 1981 and that the documents need to be validated under the Act. Through proceedings, dated 22.01.2008, the third respondent validated the documents of the year 1981. The petitioners challenge the proceedings, mainly on the ground that they were not put on notice before the order was passed. It is also stated that the fifth respondent, who was alive at the relevant point of time, was also not served with notice. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the prescribed procedure was followed before the impugned order was passed and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they have to avail the remedy under Section 5-B of the Act. The fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the notice was issued to the fifth respondent, who was alive at that time, and only on being satisfied that the documents of the year 1981 are true and legal, the impugned proceedings were issued. The fifth respondent, who was alive till recently, filed a counter-affidavit denying the service of notice on him. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Sri N.Siva Reddy, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent. The controversy in these two writ petitions is in a very narrow compass. The fifth respondent was the owner of the lands, which are subject matter of the impugned proceedings. The petitioners approached the third respondent, with a request to validate the two documents said to have been executed in their favour. The Act confers power upon the Mandal Revenue Officer to validate the documents, after issuing notice to the vendor. In the instant case, there is a serious dispute that Sanyasi Raju was not issued notice at all. An important aspect of the matter is that substantial developments have taken place after the alleged transaction between respondents 4 and 5, through registered sale deeds of the year 2004-05 executed in favour of the petitioners herein. Therefore, the actual parties, who are going to be affected on account of the validation, are the petitioners. In that view of the matter, issuance of notice to the petitioners was mandatory. Admittedly, no such notice was issued. Though an appeal under Section 5-B of the Act is provided for, once it had emerged that the impugned proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice, they are liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. The matter is remanded to the third respondent for fresh consideration and disposal and he shall issue notice to the petitioners and the sixth respondent before any further orders are passed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.03.2009 kdl