IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.1038 of 2002 Between: P.Ananth Reddy and five others. … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri D.Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri K.Pavan Kumar. Counsel for the respondents: Sri M.Rama Rao for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 24-11-2001 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he aﬃrmed order dated 20-5-1994 passed by respondent No.2. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The dispute pertains to an extent of Ac.3.17 guntas of land in Survey Nos.241 to 243, 263 and 274 of Anmagal Hayathnagar village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners approached respondent No.3 under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) seeking regularization of a sale said to have been made in their favour by Sri P.Meena Reddy, in respect of the above mentioned land under an unregistered sale deed. The said application was allowed by respondent No.3 in File No.B/2880/89. Respondent No.4, who claims to have purchased the said land under an agreement of sale, ﬁled an appeal under Section 5-B of the Act before respondent No.2, which was allowed by order dated 15-11-1997. The petitioners ﬁled a revision petition before respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Act, which was dismissed by order, dated 24-11-2001. These two orders are assailed in this Writ Petition. At the hearing Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondent No.4 had no locus standi to maintain an appeal against the order passed by respondent No.3 regularizing the sale in favour of the petitioners. He further submitted that admittedly Sri P.Meena Reddy was the party to the sale deed, which was regularized by respondent No.3, and, if at all an appeal is to be ﬁled, it is Sri P.Meena Reddy, who is the aggrieved party against the regularization order passed by respondent No.3 and entitled to ﬁle such an appeal. Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4, submitted that as his client purchased the property under an agreement of sale, he had every locus to ﬁle an appeal because he is the aggrieved party. He further submitted that to enable respondent No.4 to ﬁle an application under Section 5-A of the Act for regularization of the agreement of sale executed by his brother, he has to necessarily get the proceedings of respondent No.3, wherein he validated the sale in favour of the petitioners, set aside. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. In the view I am taking, I refrain from expressing my opinion on the respective submissions of the learned counsel. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.2 shows that he speciﬁcally recorded the objection raised by the petitioners regarding the locus standi of respondent No.4 to maintain the appeal. In page 3 of his order, he noted as under: “ The respondents through their counsel have stated that it is absolutely false to state that the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the orders of Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer in file No.B/2880/89 dated 20-5-1994 and filed by the revision petition. That the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition as the said order was not passed against him. He was not a party to the said proceedings. That they have ﬁled a petition under Section 5(A) of the Andhra Pradesh R.O.P. in land and pattadar passbook Act, 1971 against Sri P.Meena Reddy, who sold lands in Sy.No.241, 242, 243, 263 and 274 admeasuring Ac.3-17 gts. situated at Hayathnagar village to their father on 23-3-1971”. Having taken note of the said objection, respondent No.2 failed to deal with the same. Being the appellate authority, it is incumbent upon him to give a ﬁnding on this speciﬁc objection raised by the petitioners. Even in the revision petition, the petitioners raised this plea, as evident from the order passed by respondent No.1. At page 2 of his order, he extracted the ground of objection raised by the petitioners as under: “2. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer erred in considering the point when the respondent has no locus standi to ﬁle an appeal before him as he was not a party before the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and no order was passed against him. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer did not call for the ﬁle from Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and did not peruse the material ﬁled therein and passed the impugned order hastily”. In my considered view, failure of respondents 1 and 2 in considering the objection raised by the petitioners constitutes serious legal error vitiating the orders. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and both the orders are quashed without expressing any opinion either on the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the locus standi of respondent No.4 to maintain the appeal or on merits of the case. The matter remitted to respondent No.2 to consider the objection raised by the petitioners on the locus standi of respondent No.4 to maintain the appeal and dispose of the appeal on merits after recording a speciﬁc ﬁnding on the said objection of the petitioners. ------------------------- ----------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:04-11-2008 MNR