1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by respondent No.3 vide File No. D2/3925/2016, dated 02.08.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of Constitution and contrary to the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 (for short, hereinafter referred as 'the ROR Act, 1971') and consequently, to set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Sri N.Srushman Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

3. The brief facts as averred in the writ petition are that the petitioner purchased lands to an extent of Ac.0.19 guntas in Sy.No.1215/P1 and Acs.3.20 guntas in Sy.No.1214/P4 of Tadbilolli Village Shivar of Renjal Mandal, Nizamabad District (hereinafter referred to as subject property) from one Ahmed Hussain, father of respondent No.6, under an unregistered sale deed dated 12.04.2003; that since then, the petitioner has been in possession and cultivation of the subject property; that pursuant to the ROR proceedings No.551/2008, dated 16.04.2008, the petitioner's name was entered in the revenue records and a pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in his favour.

               3.1. It is further averred that respondent No.6 that filed an appeal vide Case No.E2/01/2015, before respondent No.4 disputing the petitioner's claim and sought rectification of the revenue entries and cancellation of pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner; that the said Appeal was dismissed by order dated 18.06.2016; that aggrieved thereby, respondent No.6 preferred a Revision before respondent No.3-Joint Collector; that respondent No.3 by ex-parte proceedings dated 02.08.2017, set aside the order of respondent No.4, by observing that the date of transactions took place on 12.04.2003 and 19.06.2004 and as such, the validation of the unregistered sale transaction was not in accordance with the applicable government guidelines and prescribed procedure; and that aggrieved by the said order of respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.6, after a considerable lapse of time from the date of mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue records, filed an application in Case No. E2/01/2015, claiming rights over the subject property and approached respondent no.4 seeking cancellation of the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner and the said application was rejected by respondent No.4 by order dated 18.06.2016; that aggrieved thereby, respondent No.6 preferred Revision before respondent No.3, who, without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed ex parte order dated 02.08.2017, setting aside the order passed by respondent No.4 and directed respondent No.5 to take consequential action.

               4.1. He further submitted that the petitioner had no prior intimation of the hearing of Revision scheduled on 02.08.2017 before respondent No.3 and was informed only on the night preceding the date of hearing by respondent No.6 over a telephone; that as the petitioner was in Maharashtra, on 02.08.2017, he could neither appear before respondent No.3 nor place the relevant material on record; and therefore, the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording the petitioner an opportunity to putforth his case.

               4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.6, despite being aware of the sale of the property by his father in favour of the petitioner, had approached the revenue authorities after an inordinate delay; that, if respondent No.6 claimed any independent right or title over the subject property, the appropriate remedy was to approach the competent civil Court by instituting a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, rather than seeking cancellation of the petitioner's pattadar passbook and title deed, rectification of the entries through revenue proceedings; that respondent No.6 has no valid basis to invoke the appellate or revisional jurisdiction of the revenue authorities after such lapse of long time, particularly when the petitioner was in settled possession of the subject land. He finally submitted that the impugned order of respondent No.3, having been passed without notice and without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that the subject property had been given to the petitioner on lease/kaul for a period of one year prior to the death of his father; that, taking advantage of the same, the petitioner allegedly created a fabricated document dated 19.02.2004 by projecting it as an agreement of sale and thereafter got his name entered in the relevant revenue records.

               5.1. He further submitted that, under the said Government Order G.O.Ms.No.1445 (Rev.) SSI Department, dated 05.12.2008 and Rule 22(2)(a) of the Rules framed under the Act, 1989, only alienations or transfers effected on or before 31.12.2000 were eligible for regularisation and that the alleged transaction, basing on which the petitioner claims right over the subject property was on 12.04.2003, therefore, the same cannot be regularised.

               5.2. He further submitted that the petitioner was not in possession of the subject property, as such, he did not satisfy the requirement of being recorded as the occupant in the Adangal/Pahani Patrika or the earlier Record of Rights by virtue of the alleged alienation or transfer and therefore, the regularisation and consequential mutation in favour of the petitioner were contrary to the statutory provisions and the Rules.

               5.3. He further submitted that the mutation was effected pursuant to the proceedings issued by respondent No.5, vide No.C/72/2014, dated 23.12.2015; that the mandatory notice contemplated under Section 5(3) of the ROR Act, 1971, was not issued to respondent No.6 before mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records; that respondent No.5 failed to take note of the fact that the alleged agreement was incomplete and was dated 19.02.2004, which was beyond the cut-off date prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.1445 (Rev.) SSI Department, dated 05.12.2008.

               5.4. He further submitted that respondent No.6 had approached respondent No.5 seeking rectification of the erroneous entries in the pahanies for the period from 2009 to 2014; and preferred an appeal before respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, challenging the regularisation; that the said appeal, Case No.E2/01/2015, was dismissed by order dated 18.06.2016; and that aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 preferred a Revision before respondent No.3 and during the revision proceedings, notices dated 15.11.2016 was issued to petitioner and he was called upon to appear on scheduled date of hearing i.e., on 02.12.2016, but he failed to appear; that upon examining the record, respondent No.3 has rightly found that the validation of the unregistered sale deed had not been undertaken in accordance with the prescribed procedure and guidelines.

               5.5. He further submitted that an agreement of sale cannot by itself be treated as a transfer within the meaning of Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971; that, in the present case, the alleged agreement of sale had nevertheless been relied upon for transferring the land in favour of the petitioner and entering his name in the revenue records, which was wholly illegal and arbitrary and hence, respondent No.3 has rightly allowed the Revision filed by respondent No.6, which warranting no interference by this Court and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition being devoid of merits.

6. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for respondent No.6 relied upon the judgment rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Konkana Ravinder Goud and others Vs. Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad and others (2003 (5) ALD 654), wherein it was held as under:

               "Agreement to sell does not convey any right, title or interest in the property. Relying upon the decisions in Rambaran Prasad's case (supra) and Narandas Karsondas case (supra) and, referring to Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, Apex Court held that ultimate paragraph of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act enunciates that a contract of the sale of immovable property does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property."

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

8. In the light of submissions of both the learned counsels, the following issues arise for consideration:

               a) Whether the regularisation of the unregistered sale transaction dated 12.04.2003 by ROR proceedings No.551/2008, dated 16.04.2008, was contrary to the applicable Government Orders governing regularisation of unregistered sale transactions,

               b) Whether respondent No.3 was justified in setting aside the said proceedings dated 18.06.2016, of respondent No.4, by the impugned order dated 02.08.2017

9. The material available on record discloses that the petitioner claims to have been in possession and cultivation of the subject property since 2003, after purchasing the same from Ahmed Hussain, father of respondent No.6, under an unregistered sale deed dated 12.04.2003, which was attested by respondent No.6 as a witness. Further, respondent No.5 had issued a certificate under Section 13B of ROR Act, 1971, validating the said unregistered sale deed, vide proceedings No.551/2008, dated 16.04.2008, and the same was upheld by respondent No.4 in Case No. E2/01/2015 dated 18.06.2016 and, consequently, the petitioner's name was entered in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in his favour.

10. It is equally important to note that the father of respondent No.6, from whom the petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property, did not challenge either unregistered sale transaction or the subsequent mutation of petitioner's name in revenue records as well as issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds during his lifetime till 2009.

11. It is also relevant to note that respondent No.6 is a muslim and hence, governed by the Mohammedan Law, as per which, a son does not acquire a vested right in the property of his father during the latter's lifetime, therefore, the subsequent challenge by respondent No.6, after several years, cannot be accepted merely on the ground that he claims an interest in the property. In the circumstances, the subsequent contention of respondent No.6 that the subject property had only been given to the petitioner on kaul and that the transaction was not one of sale does not merits acceptance.

12. It is pertinent to note that the revenue proceedings were completed and pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in favour of the petitioner on 16.04.2008 pursuant to ROR Proceedings No.551/2008, however, challenging the said proceedings, respondent No.6 approached respondent No.4 only in the year 2015, i.e., nearly after seven years. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, the maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt, which means that the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights, squarely applies to the present case. Further, the proceedings ROR No.551/2008, dated 16.04.2008, were upheld by respondent No.4 in the Appeal, vide order dated 18.06.2016; however, in the revision preferred by respondent No.6 before respondent No.3, the said order was set aside by the impugned order dated 02.08.2017.

13. It is relevant to refer to the following judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh of High Court in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Cuddapah and others ((2009) 1 ALD 248), wherein it is held as under:

               " No application for condonation of delay was claimed to be filed by respondent No. 4 nor respondent No. 2 passed any order condoning the delay before entertaining and adjudicating the appeal on merits. If respondent No. 4 was aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he should have filed a statutory appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, within the time limit, or a civil suit under Section 8(2) of the Act before the competent Civil Court. As he did not take recourse to either of the two remedies, it is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 to entertain the petition filed by respondent No. 4, because he has no power akin to the power vested in respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Act."

14. In the present case, respondent No.6 has not placed any satisfactory material explaining the delay in challenging the revenue proceedings dated 16.04.2008 until the year 2015. Though he claims to have made representations before the Tahsildar between 2009 and 2014, no material evidencing such representations or demonstrating that the matter was continuously pursued during the period 2009- 2014 has been placed before this Court. Equally, respondent No.3, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, has not assigned any cogent reasons for entertaining such a belated challenge or for condoning the delay. Therefore, respondent No.3 was not justified in entertaining the Revision after such an inordinate delay in the absence of any satisfactory explanation therefor.

15. As regards the principal contention of learned counsel for respondent No.6 regarding the validity of the regularisation, it is to be seen that respondent No.6 relies upon G.O.Ms.No.1445 (Rev.) SSI Department, dated 05.12.2008, contending that the transactions effected on or before 31.12.2000, were only eligible for validation and that the transaction relied upon by the petitioner being of the year 2003, was therefore beyond the prescribed cut-off date. However, the said contention cannot be considered in isolation from the subsequent Government Orders governing regularisation of such transactions. The subsequent Government Orders extended the permissible period for regularisation of unregistered transactions, first up to 31.03.2008 and thereafter, up to 15.06.2016 by G.O.Ms.No.153, dated 03.06.2016, which provided for entertaining applications for regularisation of transactions which were effected prior to 02.06.2014. The legal effect of these subsequent extensions was that the original cut-off date of 31.12.2000 could no longer be treated as an absolute bar in respect of transactions falling within the subsequently extended period and otherwise satisfying the conditions prescribed for regularisation.

16. In the present case, the transaction relied upon by the petitioner is dated 12.04.2003 and therefore, falls within the period covered by the subsequent extension up to 31.03.2008. More importantly, the transaction had already been considered and acted upon by the revenue authorities, as evidenced by the certificate dated 16.04.2005 and the subsequent ROR Proceedings No.551/2008, dated 16.04.2008, pursuant to which the petitioner's name was entered in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in his favour. Thus, the transaction was not a case where the petitioner sought regularisation for the first time after the expiry of the original cut-off date. It had already been considered by the competent revenue authorities during the period covered by the subsequently extended cut-off. Therefore, the validity of the petitioner's regularisation could not have been rejected merely by applying the original cut-off date of 31.12.2000 under G.O.Ms.No.1445, without considering the subsequent Government Orders extending the permissible period for regularisation and the fact that the petitioner's transaction had already been acted upon by the revenue authorities. Consequently, the finding of respondent No.3 that the regularisation was impermissible solely on the ground that the transaction was subsequent to 31.12.2000 cannot be sustained.

17. Having regard to the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No.3 erred in entertaining the Revision filed by respondent No.6 and in setting aside the proceedings of respondent No.4.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by respondent No.3 in File No. D2/3925/2016 dated 02.08.2017 is set aside.

19. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.