THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 931 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners purchased an extent of Ac.21.28 guntas of land in Survey Nos.269 and 273 of Keesara Revenue Village and Mandal, under an unregistered document from one Mr. Gurram Malla Reddy and others in the year 1986. They approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara with an application under Section 5-A of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) for validation of the unregistered document. Through proceedings dated 21.01.1994, the Mandal Revenue Officer validated the document. Respondents 3 to 6 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, 2nd respondent herein under Section 5-B of the Act, aggrieved by the proceedings dated 21.01.1994 of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The appeal was rejected on 17.12.2007, on the grounds of delay and absence of locus standi. Thereafter, respondents 3 to 6 filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 1st respondent herein under Section 9 of the Act. The revision was allowed through order, dated 20.12.2008. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no justification for the 1st respondent in setting aside the order passed under Section 5-A of the Act in the year 1994. He contends that the order of validation was the subject matter of appeal before the 2nd respondent twice and when the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal on the grounds of lack of locus standi and delay, maximum that the 1st respondent could have done, was to remand the matter. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the 1st respondent took note of the fact that a comprehensive suit for declaration of title is pending and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Sri K.Govardhan Reddy, who filed caveat for respondents 3 to 6 submits that the vendors of the petitioners themselves seriously disputed the facts that gave raise to the order of validation dated 21.01.1994 and that once a comprehensive suit, being O.S.No.536 of 2006 filed by the petitioners themselves is pending, the parties have to await the outcome of the same. The order of validation under Section 5-A of the Act was passed in favour of the petitioners way back on 21.01.1994. Initially, an appeal under Section 5-B was filed by two of the vendors and the dispute was not seriously about the validity of the order dated 21.01.1994 but about the inter se rights of different parties. An appeal was preferred by respondents 3 to 6 in the year 2006 against the order dated 21.01.1994. The 2nd respondent refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that the appellants do not have locus standi, since they are only purchasers of the property in the year 2004 and that there is enormous delay in preferring the appeal. Naturally, they filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act before the 1st respondent. Even while the appeal before the 2nd respondent was pending, the petitioners filed O.S.No.536 of 2006 for declaration of title. Obviously they relied upon the proceedings dated 21.01.1994 in support of the title. The 1st respondent took the view that inasmuch as the suit is pending, the validation proceedings cannot be sustained in law. He did not take into account, the fact that the suit came to be filed 12 years subsequent to the order of validation, that too on its basis and not challenging the same. Further, in case, the 1st respondent was of the view that the appeal preferred by respondents 3 to 6 ought to have been entertained by the 2nd respondent, the only course open to him was to remand the matter. When the 2nd respondent did not go into the merits of the mater, the 1st respondent was not supposed to deal with the same. This Court would have dealt with the order passed by the 2nd respondent also in detail, but for the fact that he proceeded on the assumption that respondents 3 to 6 do not have the locus standi. Inasmuch as respondents 3 to 6 step into the shoes of their vendors, they can certainly question the proceedings dated 21.01.1994. In case, the petitioners have pleaded any grounds for delayed presentation of the appeal, the same needs to be examined in detail. No such discussion is evident from the order, dated 17.12.2007. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 20.12.2008, as well as the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 17.12.2007 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. He shall proceed on the assumption that respondents 3 to 6 have the locus standi to present the appeal and shall deal with the question of limitation in detail. In case, he condones the delay in presentation of the appeal, he shall be entitled to examine the validity of the order, dated 21.01.1994. It shall be open to the parties to supplement their pleadings before the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 27.01.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 931 of 2009 Date: 27.01.2009 JSU