1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Case No.D1/5518/2015, dated 07.12.2017, and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules thereunder. (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the ROR Act, 1971’).

2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri P.Avinash Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt.S.Mrudula, learned counsel-on-record for respondent Nos.5 to 11.

3. The succinct facts of the case as averred in the Writ Petition are that one Muthyala Sugriva @ Sukaraiah, who was in possession of the lands, has executed unregistered Agreement of sale for an extent of Acs.3.10 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.39, 40 and 41 situated at Shameerpet Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of Narla @ Reguchettu Narsaiah for a total consideration of Rs.13,000/- and received a sum of Rs.6,000/- as part sale consideration and delivered possession of the subject land; that subsequently, the original pattadars-Mahaboob Khan and others raised a dispute, but the matter was compromised and accordingly, Mahaboob Khan and others executed two unregistered sale deeds dated 30.01.1977 and 10.04.1977 confirming the sale and received balance sale consideration from Reguchettu @ Narla Mallaiah, Narla Narsaiah and Mykala Mallaiah, i.e., the petitioners herein; that the petitioners approached respondent No.4 for regularization of the unregistered sale deeds under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971 r/w Rule 22 (2) of the Rules, 1989 and for mutation of their names in the revenue records; that respondent No.4 had taken the case in File No.B/1238/89, issued notices under Forms-XI and XII to all the respondents including respondent Nos.5 to 11 calling for their objections, if any; that respondent Nos.5 to 12 through their counsel filed counter denying the claim of the petitioners and stated that neither themselves nor their ancestors sold the subject land at any point of time and that the same was leased to 3rd parties for certain time; that the unregistered sale deeds dated 31.01.1977 and 10.04.1977 were signed only by Mahaboob Khan, who is father of respondent No.5, and respondent No.11, however the 3rd pattadar-Rahmath Khan did not sign the said documents; that the agreement of Sale dated 11.12.1976 executed by Muthyala Sugriva @ Sukaraiah is not valid as he is not the pattadar but only possessor of the subject land and prayed to reject the application; and that respondent No.4, by duly recording the statements of villagers/neighbouring land owners and having found that the petitioners were in possession of the subject land, regularized the unregistered sale deeds and subsequently, the names of the petitioners have been entered in the revenue records as pattadars and possessors in respect of the subject property.

               3.1. It is further averred that respondent Nos.5 to 11 have initially preferred Appeal in File No.A2/7022/1993 with inordinate delay before respondent No.3 and the same was dismissed, vide order dated 15.12.2007; that aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.5 to 11 filed Revision vide Case No.D5/2171/ 2008 before respondent No.2 and the said Revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to respondent No.3 for fresh disposal vide order dated 07.11.2009; that challenging the order of respondent No.2, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.24532 of 2010 and this Court disposed of the said case by its order dated 06.04.2015 setting aside the order of respondent No.2 with an observation that the order passed by respondent No.4 was not appealable by the time it was passed, since Section 5-B of the ROR Act was inserted and came into force with effect from 13.10.1993 and thus, this Court directed the respondent Nos.5 to 11 to prefer Revision against the order dated 04.03.1993 passed by respondent No.4. In pursuance of the said Order, respondent Nos.5 to 11 filed Revision No.D5/5518/2015 before respondent No.2 on 07.07.2015 raising the same grounds as were urged before respondent No.4; that the petitioners herein have filed counter and contested the said Revision, however, respondent No.2, without appreciating the contentions and the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners, erroneously allowed the Revision in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 11. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have taken specific stand before respondent No.2 that possession was delivered to the petitioners after receipt of consideration, as such, respondent Nos.5 to 11 cannot contend that the 3 rd pattadar did not sign the sale deed; that the respondents have admitted the long possession of petitioners over the subject land; that disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by Revenue Court; that though there is no time limit, respondent Nos.5 to 11 have failed to explain inordinate delay in preferring Revision; that respondent No.2 did not appreciate any of the grounds and contentions raised by the petitioners herein and passed the impugned order erroneously on untenable grounds and that respondent No.2 failed to appreciate the detailed reasons recorded by respondent No.3 in his order.

               4.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that by the impugned order, respondent No.2 rejected the sale deeds only on the ground that original deeds are in Urdu and translated copies are not authenticated. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has also not considered the regularization proceedings of respondent No.4 which were passed by issuing notices to all the affected parties concerned and following the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 and the Rules, 1989. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has not considered the longstanding possession of the petitioners over the subject land and mutation of the revenue records and therefore, the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 11 has drawn attention of this Court to the observation of respondent No.2 in the impugned order that the Agreement of Sale dated 11.12.1976 was executed by Muthyala Sugriva @ Sunkaraiah, who was not recorded as pattadar of the said land, and the link document of the subject land was also not filed to support the claim of the petitioners. He further submitted that respondent No.2 also observed that the balance sale consideration agreed under unregistered sale deeds dated 30.01.1977 and 10.04.1977 was not paid to the pattadars. Out of the three pattadars, only two pattadars viz., Mahboob Khan and Vazeer Khan executed the sale deed and 3rd pattadar Rahmat Khan did not execute the sale deed and as such, the alleged sale deeds are valid.

               5.1. Learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 11 by referring to the counter submitted that the unregistered sale deeds dated 30.01.1977 and 10.04.1977 were not reflected in the validation proceedings No.B/1238/89, dated 04.03.1993 i.e. Form XIII-B and Form XIII-C and in fact, Form-XIII-C refers to the agreement of sale dated 11.12.1976 and thus the unregistered sale deeds 30.01.1977 and 10.04.1977 were not regularized by respondent No.4. He further submitted that respondent Nos.5 to 11 contested the proceedings and categorically denied the execution of sale deed by the pattadars at any point of time, however, the same was not appreciated by respondent No.4 as well as respondent No.3 in the appeal.

               5.2. He further submitted that the total sale consideration of Rs.13,000/- as agreed under Agreement of sale dated 11.12.1976 was not paid. Therefore, the document dated 11.12.1976 does not qualify as sale deed and is not an alienation within the meaning of Section 5-A of ROR Act. He further submitted that in the present case, respondent No.4 regularized the agreement of sale, dated 11.12.1976, which is evident from Form-III-C.

6. In the light of the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of erstwhile of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, an agreement of sale cannot be validated and on this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 11 placed reliance on the Judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, in Konkana Ravinder Goud Vs. Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad(2003 (5) ALD 654), wherein it was held that unregistered sale deeds can only be regularized and agreement of sale cannot be regularized, which reads as under:

               “In the instant case, we are concerned with the purport and meaning of the word "transfer" as contained in Section 5-A of the Act in the light of the objects and reasons in introducing the said provision, namely, to regularise an unregistered sale transaction, which would not mean to regularise incomplete transfers. There is no machinery or mechanism provided in the Act that even a person who has entered into an agreement of sale and in case sale is not completed but he has been put into possession of the property even on payment of entire sale consideration that can approach the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of a certificate under Section 5-A of the Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer in such a case cannot proceed to hold an enquiry as to whether agreement of sale has been complied with or not. On the failure on the part of vendor to complete the sale transaction, a person in whose favour there is an agreement of sale can seek specific performance of the agreement of sale so as to convey right, title or interest of the vendors. The machinery provided under the Act is not the appropriate machinery for perfecting title merely on the basis of agreement to sell. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the learned Judge that there is a valid transfer of immoveable property under agreements of sale cannot be sustained. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the agreement of sale relied upon by the Society is not covered by the term transfer and cannot be treated as an "alienation" or "transfer" within the scope and meaning of Section 5-A of the Act.”

8. He finally submitted that respondent No.2, considering all the aforesaid aspects, has passed the impugned order by duly recording elaborate reasons and the petitioners failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. A perusal of the record discloses that the foundation for initiation of proceedings under Section 5-A was the document dated 11.12.1976 described as an Agreement of Sale. The recitals of the said document show that the total sale consideration was fixed and only a portion thereof was paid on the date of execution, while the balance consideration was agreed to be paid subsequently. Therefore, the document merely evidences an agreement between the parties to complete the sale transaction in future and does not, by itself, effect transfer of title or interest in the immovable property.

11. It is also evident from the record that the subject property stands originally in the names of three pattadars, viz., Mahboob Khan, Vazeer Khan and Rahmat Khan. The material placed before this Court indicates that the subsequent unregistered sale deeds dated 30.01.1977 and 10.04.1977 were executed only by two of the pattadars. There is no material to establish that the third pattadar, namely Rahmat Khan, either executed any sale deed or otherwise consented to transfer his share in the property. In the absence of any such material, the claim of the petitioners over the entire extent of land could not have been accepted without adjudication of disputed questions relating to title and succession.

12. According to the petitioners, they sought for regularization of two unregistered sale deeds dated 30.01.1977 and 10.04.1977 under Section 5-A of the Act, 1971. Respondent No.4, after conducting an enquiry and issuing notices to all the parties concerned, regularized the transaction vide proceedings dated 04.03.1993 and consequential mutations were effected in favour of the petitioners. Whereas respondent Nos.5 to 11 by referring to Form-III-C contended that only agreement of sale dated 11.12.1976 was regularized and in view of the ratio laid down in Konkana Ravinder Goud’s case (cited supra), the same is permissible.

13. It is relevant to refer to Form-XIII-B, wherein the petitioners names have been mentioned as purchasers, the relevant portion of it, reads as hereunder:-

               “Whereas Sri M.Mallaiah, M.Iliah, N.Balaiah, N.Narsiah, N.Satiah, R/o Shamirpet applied for validation of sale/alienation under Section 5-A of the Act. After completion of a due enquiry as prescribed under the law, Sri M.Mallaiah, M.Iliah, N.Balaiah, N.Narsiah, N.Satiah are found to be the purchaser of the land by an unregistered document in Sy.Nos.39, 40, 1 extent Acs.3.10 gts from Mutyala Sugreeva…….”

14. The petitioners heavily relied upon their long possession and the mutation entries made pursuant to the proceedings dated 04.03.1993. While possession may be a relevant aspect, it cannot, by itself, confer title. Revenue entries are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and they do not create or extinguish title. Whenever serious disputes regarding title/ownership arise, the same are required to be adjudicated by a competent civil Court.

15. A further aspect which assumes significance is that respondent Nos.5 to 11 consistently disputed the very execution and genuineness of the documents relied upon by the petitioners. They specifically contended that neither they nor their predecessors-in-interest had alienated the subject property and that the documents relied upon by the petitioners were not binding upon them. Such disputed questions relating to execution, validity and enforceability of documents cannot ordinarily be conclusively determined in summary proceedings under Section 5-A of the ROR Act.

16. Respondent No.2, while passing the impugned order, recorded findings that the Agreement of Sale dated 11.12.1976 did not constitute a transfer or alienation within the meaning of Section 5-A of the ROR Act and that the subsequent unregistered sale deeds were not executed by all the pattadars. Respondent No.2 further observed that there are deficiencies in the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioners. The said findings are based upon the material available on record and cannot be said to be perverse or unsupported by evidence.

17. The contention of the petitioners that the revision ought not to have been entertained on account of delay also does not merit acceptance in the peculiar facts of the case. The earlier round of litigation culminated in passing of order by this Court in W.P.No.24532 of 2010 granting liberty to respondent Nos.5 to 11 to avail the revisional remedy and pursuant thereto, the Revision came to be filed by respondent Nos.5 to 11 and was adjudicated. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there was delay in filing Revision is untenable.

18. Moreover, the issue as to whether an agreement of sale can be regularized under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971, is no longer res integra. A Division Bench in Konkana Ravinder Goud’s case (cited supra) categorically held that Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971, contemplates regularization of completed unregistered sale transactions and not mere agreements of sale. The Court further held that disputes arising out of agreements of sale are required to be worked out before the competent civil Court and cannot be resolved through the machinery provided under the ROR Act, 1971. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

19. In view of the above discussion, in considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order dated 07.12.2017 passed by respondent No.2 warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute raised by the petitioners essentially involves disputed questions of title and enforceability of the documents relied upon by them, for which the appropriate remedy lies before the competent civil Court.

20. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

21. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings before competent civil Court. No costs.

22. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stands closed.