Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel representing Ms. Mubeena Fathima, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs.Lalitha Gayathri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 15.

2. The present Appeal is filed by the appellants/Writ Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 assailing the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and W.P.No.8901 of 2008 filed for quashing the order passed by the respondent No.1 bearing No.F2/7130/2006 dated 27.02.2008 in exercise of powers conferred upon the said authority under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘1971 Act’).

3. The subject property involved in the present case is the land admeasuring Ac.24.18 gts and Acs.20.25 gts respectively situated in Sy.Nos.29 and 33, totally admeasuring Acs.45.03 gts., of Bhongir village and Mandal, Nalgonda District (presently in Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District).

4. The facts leading to file the Writ Petition are that the respondent No.12/Writ petitioner No.1 was the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the subject lands. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, claiming to have purchased the subject land under a simple sale deed dated 16.02.1984, approached the respondent No.3- The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) requesting for validation of the said simple sale under Section 5A of the 1971 Act, who in turn issued proceedings dated 21.09.1994 validating the simple sale deed and issued Certificate in Form-13B in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, pursuant to which, their names were entered in the Revenue Records.

5. After about eight years, the Writ petitioner No.1 filed an Appeal in 2002 before the respondent No.2 challenging the regularization proceedings, and the said Appeal was allowed by order dated 31.01.2004 setting aside the Form-13B Certificate dated 21.09.1994 by remitting the matter back to respondent No.3 for conducting enquiry afresh. Pursuant to the said remand order, the respondent No.3 conducted enquiry and passed order dated 28.06.2005 recording a finding that earlier proceedings dated 21.09.1994 failed to follow the required procedure and cancelled the Form-13B Certificate directing restoration of the name of Writ petitioner No.1 in the Revenue Records.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed an Appeal under Section 5(5) of the 1971 Act before respondent No.2, who passed an interim order dated 03.10.2005 directing to maintain status quo in implementation of the order dated 28.06.2005 passed by the respondent No.3. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Nos.4 and 5 invoked revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 before the respondent No.1 against the remand order dated 31.01.2004.

7. The respondent No.1 granted an interim order suspending the earlier orders passed by the respondent No.3 and allowed the revision by order dated 27.02.2008. Meanwhile, respondent Nos.4 and 5 withdrew the Appeal before the respondent No.2.

8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellants purchased the subject property from Writ petitioner No.1 under registered sale deed dated 21.11.2005, and they also filed an application in the Revision petition pending then before the respondent No.1 seeking permission to come on record claiming right through the registered sale deed dated 21.11.2005, which was rejected vide separate orders.

9. The appellants and Writ petitioner Nos.1 to 5 have filed W.P.No.8901 of 2008 challenging the revisional order 27.02.2008 passed by the respondent No.1.

10. During pendency of W.P.No.8901 of 2008, the Writ petitioner No.1 filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking permission of the Court to engage a separate counsel along with I.A.No.3 of 2022 for withdrawal of the Writ Petition, contending that without his knowledge, the said Writ Petition was filed. By order dated 12.04.2023, I.A.No.1 of 2022 was allowed. On the demise of respondent No.5, respondent No.6 to 11 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5.

11. Before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel appearing for the Writ petitioner No.1 contended that the Writ Petition was filed without the knowledge and consent of the Writ petitioner No.1; that the subject property was also sold to respondent No.4 and 5, and since, the Writ petitioner No.1 is not having any right over the subject property, he is not interested to pursue the Writ Petition, thereby sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition.

12. The appellants herein contended before the learned Single Judge that proceedings purported to have been issued under Section 5A of the 1971 Act in favour of respondent No.4 and 5 are basing on an Agreement of sale dated 16.02.1984, but not a simple Sale Deed, and the same is non-est in the eye of law, and that the respondent No.3 issued the said proceedings without issuing prior notice to the Writ Petitioner No.1, the same is in violation of the procedure of the 1971 Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is further contended that respondent Nos.4 and 5, having participated in the remand proceedings and having availed appellate remedy there against, are estopped from invoking revisional jurisdiction against the remand order, which is filed beyond the period of limitation.

13. It was therefore contended that orders passed by respondent No.3 under Section 5A of the 1971 Act are the result of fraud played by respondent No.4 and 5 against Writ petitioner No.1 and also in violation of principles of natural justice.

14. In support of the above contentions, reliance was placed on the decisions in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and others (2007(6) ALD 348 (FB)), Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Salfs Cooperative Society Ltd. and others Vs. Secretary (Food and Agriculture) Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ((1977) 4 SCC 337), M/s.Chandni Crafts, Through Its Proprietor Ghanshyam Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others (D.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.5460 of 2020 of Rajasthan High Court) and Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and others ((2008) 12 SCC 353).

15. Respondent Nos.4 and 6 to 11 in the Writ Petition contended before the learned Single Judge that it is not the open for the appellants to dispute that there is no proceeding issued by respondent No.3 under Section 5A of the 1971 Act as Writ Petitioner No.1 filed Appeal under Section 5(5) of the 1971 Act against the proceedings dated 21.09.1994 only, and in the absence of such proceedings, the respondent No.2 entertaining the appeal does not arise; that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have availed the remedy of revision; and since there is no limitation prescribed under Section 9 of the Act 1971, the question of delay in approaching the revisional authority or failure to seek condonation of delay etc. does not arise.

16. It is further contended that the registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of Writ petitioner No.1 had participated in the regularization proceedings before the respondent No.3 resulting in issuance of the proceedings dated 21.09.1994 and the GPA Holder of Writ petitioner also conceded about the sale of subject property in favour respondent Nos.4 and 5 and as such, the ground of non-issuance of notice to Writ petitioner No.1 by the respondent No.3 does not arise. It is further contended that though Writ Petitioner No.1 disputed about the execution of the registered GPA in favour of Mr.Vadloju Ashok and about initiation of criminal proceedings against respondent Nos.4 and 5, the genuineness of the said GPA was established and final report filed in Crime No.66 of 2007 of Bhongir Town P. S also proves the same.

17. It is further contended that once Writ petitioner No.1 has expressed his intention not to pursue the Writ Petition, the appellants, who purchased the subject property during the pendency of the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities and whose application for impleadment in Revision proceedings before Respondent No.1 was rejected on 27.02.2008, which rejection was not challenged, are not entitled to pursue the Writ Petition.

18. It is contended that the appellants are the speculative purchasers and at their instance only, the entire proceedings were initiated by Writ petitioner No.1 causing great prejudice to respondent No.4 and 5. It is further contended that the regularization proceedings were not issued upon agreement of sale dated 16.02.1984, that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have paid the balance sale consideration under a separate receipt dated 05.06.1984 and after such payment only, they approached the respondent No.3 seeking regularization of such simple sale deed.

19. Before the learned Single Judge, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and if any of the parties have got any claim of title over the subject property, it is appropriate for them to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance, but not by way of a Writ Petition.

20. Basing on the above pleadings and contentions urged, learned Single Judge held that Writ petitioner No.1 being the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, has disowned the Writ Petition contending that he did not have any knowledge nor consented for filing the petition and sought withdrawal. Further, in the absence of any rebuttal to his withdrawal, W.P.No.8901 of 2008 was dismissed as withdrawn as against Writ Petitioner No.1 is concerned, thereby weakening the case of petitioner Nos.2 to 5, as the original record could not verify the vakalat of the Writ petitioner No.1.

21. The learned Single Judge observed that during pendency of proceedings and subsisting status quo order, the appellants have entered into a transaction with Writ petitioner No.1 knowing well that dispute is pending before the Revenue authorities. Further the appellants, without challenging the rejection order of their impleadment, have filed W.P.No.8901 of 2008 along with Writ petitioner No.1, with a reason that no such order was communicated to them by respondent No.1.

22. Learned Single Judge held that the respondent No.3, on remand of the matter from the respondent No.2, has once again undertaken an exercise to find fault with the procedure followed by his predecessor, and once again ordered to cancel the certificate issued under Form-13B and pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. The respondent No.3, instead of considering the case of respondent Nos.4 and 5 for regularization under Section 5A of the 1971 Act, has erroneously misdirected himself and made an attempt to find fault with the procedure adopted by his predecessor and the said order dated 28.06.2005 is only a consequent upon the order dated 31.01.2004 passed by respondent No.2, and once the order dated 31.01.2004 is set aside by the respondent No.1 in exercise of Revisional power, all consequential acts would also automatically comes to an end.

23. On the aspect of maintainability of the Revision, the learned Single Judge held that since Section 9 of the 1971 Act does not prescribe any limitation period, the question of condonation of delay does not arise and merely because the remedy of appeal is availed against the order dated 28.06.2005, that by itself cannot be a ground to bar invoking of revisional jurisdiction against the order dated 31.01.2004 passed by respondent No.2.

24. The learned Single Judge held that when the GPA Holder of Writ petitioner No.1 participated in the enquiry under Section 5A of the 1971 Act and expressed his no objection for regularizing the simple Deed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, the claim of Writ petitioner No.1 of he not putting on notice, is of no avail, and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. In the absence of proper explanation for filing the appeal after a lapse of eight years under Section 5B of the 1971 Act, the very appeal was not maintainable.

25. As regards the contention of regularizing the Agreement of Sale under Section 5A of the 1971 Act, the learned Single Judge held that the Memo dated 10.07.2023 shows that the original transaction under the Agreement of Sale was completed by paying the balance sale consideration and thereafter only respondent Nos.4 and 5 approached the Revenue authorities for regularization under Section 5A of the 1971 Act. It was further held that in terms of Section 5A of the 1971 Act, where a person is an occupant by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or affected otherwise than by registered document, the alienee or tranfereee is entitled to apply for a certificate declaring such declaration or transfer is valid, and it is not the form of or nature of document that is relevant, but it is the occupation of land, by way of completed alienation or transfer, and that the Writ Petitioner No.1 raised no objection while filing Appeal under Section 5B of the 1971 Act, but objection is raised only for first time in the Court, and the same is not maintainable.

26. The learned Single Judge concluded that the respondent No.1, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction has arrived at right conclusion that if appellants have got any right, claim or interest over the subject property, it is open for them to pursue such all remedies by approaching a competent Civil Court and establish their rights, and held that it is not a fit case to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.1 in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and dismissed the Writ Petition.

27. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein have preferred the present Appeal.

28. Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Vedeendra Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Single judge ought to have seen that their valuable property rights which are constitutionally protected, are at jeopardy.

29. It was contended that the order dated 29.09.1994 passed by the respondent No.3 regularizing document dated 16.02.1994 and consequential order of the respondent No.1 dated 27.02.2008 are without jurisdiction. It is further contended that document dated 16.02.1984 is in the nature of an agreement entered into another registered agreement on a future date and that it is evident on account of the fact that the balance of sale consideration of Rs.7,536/- was yet to be paid and there was a specific assurance of executing a registered sale deed in future upon payment of sale consideration and therefore the same could not have been regularized. It is urged that the learned Single Judge erroneously held that the balance sale consideration was subsequently paid, the transaction stood completed and therefore, the document was entitled to be regularized.

30. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Section 5-A of the 1971 Act empowers the MRO to regularize simple/unregistered sale deeds only and not agreements of sale. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants relied upon the decisions in Konkana Ravinder Goud and others Vs. Bhavanrishi Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad and others (2003 SCC OnLine AP 852) and K.Seetharama Reddy and another Vs. Hassan Ali Khan and others (2002 SCC OnLine AP 1036), wherein this Court held that neither the MRO or any other revenue authority has any jurisdiction to regularize a document which is in the form of unregistered agreement of sale and that any such proceeding of regularization would be wholly without jurisdiction. In Konkana Ravinder Goud (supra), it was held that even if the balance sale consideration was paid thereafter, the nature of document would not change from an agreement of sale to a sale deed and therefore, it would still not be entitled to be regularized.

31. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the challenge to the regularization proceedings was raised for the first time in the Writ Petition, as the said finding is contrary to record where the respondent No.3 in the remand order dated 28.06.2005 had given a finding to the effect that the document sought to be regularized was in the nature of an agreement of sale which cannot be regularized. By placing reliance on the decision in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and others Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana and others ((2013) 10 SCC 136), it is contended that an issue relating to lack of jurisdiction of an authority can be raised at any stage, including in a collateral proceeding,

32. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the earlier proceedings, wherein respondent No.2 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.12 on 31.01.2004 and remanded the matter for de novo enquiry, and thereafter the respondent No.3, by order dated 28.06.2005 held that the regularization was erroneous. The appellants assert that respondent Nos.4 and 5, having participated in the remand proceedings, are precluded from challenging the remand order after suffering an adverse order and cannot approbate and reprobate. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions in Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2023 SCC OnLIne SC 656) and Designated Authority (Anti-Dumping Directorate), Ministry of Commerce Vs. Haldor ((2006) 6 SCC 626).

33. It is further contended that respondent Nos.4 and 5 withdrew the appeal and pursued a revision without filing any delay condonation petition, which is contrary to law.

34. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the conduct of respondent No.12, who had consistently denied execution of any sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in earlier proceedings, including the statutory appeal, and had also initiated criminal proceedings alleging forgery, therefore the subsequent withdrawal of the Writ Petition is collusive. The learned Single Judge also stated to have ignored the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory indicating dissimilarity of signatures. It is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the vakalat of the appellants was missing from the bundle, when in fact, the Writ Petition itself would not be numbered without there being any vakalat for the concerned parties.

35. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the respondent No.3 acted in violation of the mandatory procedure by not issuing notice to respondent No.12 as required under the ROR Act before validating the simple sale deed. It is asserted that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate title, yet the impugned proceedings effectively recognize title in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, which is impermissible in law.

36. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to consider material aspects such as the existence of valid registered sale deeds in favour of the appellants executed by all family members, issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, and recognition of their possession in official records, including entries in the Dharani Portal and benefits extended under the Rythu Bandhu Scheme. Thus, it is contended that the impugned order suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, mis-appreciation of facts and incorrect application of law, and is therefore liable to be set aside

37. On the other hand, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs.Lalitha Gayatri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 15 contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and reasonable, does not call for any interference by this Court.

38. It is submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 5 are not precluded from availing the statutory remedy of revision against the RDO’s order merely because they participated in the proceedings before the MRO pursuant to the RDO’s directions and challenged the MRO order as there can be no estoppel against a statute, and therefore the exercise of a statutory right cannot be defeated on such grounds. Consequently, the availing of the substantive remedy of revision cannot be faulted on the technical plea of prior participation in proceedings.

39. It is further submitted that the Revision petition filed by respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 cannot be said to be barred by limitation as no period of limitation is prescribed for instituting a Revision petition under section 9 of the 1971 Act. Hence, the filing of the Revision after a lapse of two years does not render the Revision invalid and the same ought to be considered on merits rather than being rejected on procedural grounds.

40. Learned counsel for respondents challenged the legality of the RDO’s order, contending that it is contrary to the statutory scheme as the RDO, in 2002, entertained an appeal after an inordinate delay of eight years from the date of the MRO’s validation proceedings, despite Section 5-B mandating that such appeal must be filed within 30 days and not conferring any power on the RDO to condone delay. The RDO’s order is completely silent on this jurisdictional defect. This fundamental illegality has been rightly appreciated both by the learned Single Judge and the Joint Collector.

41. It is, therefore, contended that setting aside the impugned order of the Joint Collector would effectively result in reviving an illegal and time-barred order of the RDO. Such a consequence would defeat the very purpose of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is intended to correct illegality rather than perpetuate it. Therefore, the present case does not warrant any interference in exercise of Writ jurisdiction.

42. With regard to the contention that the document dated 16.02.1984 is merely an agreement of sale and not a sale deed, the learned counsel submits that this plea is untenable as this argument was never raised before the RDO or the Joint Collector and cannot be pleaded for the first time in Writ proceedings, and the earlier contention of respondent No.12/Writ Petitioner No.1 that no document had been executed at all, directly contradicts the present plea. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the proceedings evidence a completed sale, even if part of the consideration was to be paid later, which is permissible under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Moreover, the balance consideration was paid prior to seeking validation, and therefore the transferee is entitled to the benefit of Section 5-A of the 1971 Act.

43. The learned counsel further submits that the withdrawal of the Writ Petition by Writ Petitioner No.1, accompanied by an affidavit stating that he had never authorized the filing of the appeal before the RDO or the Writ Petition, amounts to an admission that the validation proceedings before the MRO were legal and valid. In such circumstances, any grievance of the appellants lies against Writ Petitioner No.1 and not within the scope of the present Writ proceedings. Additionally, the appellants, not being parties before the Joint Collector, failed to seek leave of the Court before instituting the Writ Petition and also did not challenge the dismissal of their impleadment application, thereby rendering the Writ Petition procedurally defective.

44. It is finally contended that although the MRO’s order suffers from infirmity as it failed to conduct a fresh enquiry as directed by the RDO and merely reiterated the earlier findings, the ultimate view taken by the learned Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is a plausible and legally sustainable one.

45. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 to 15 relied upon the decision in Management of Narendra and Company Private Ltd. Vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company ((2016) 3 SCC 340) and V.Praveen Vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation rep., by its Managing Director (2018 SCC Online Hyd 364), wherein it was held that when an appeal before the Division Bench is preferred against the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge, the appellate court will not interfere with such exercise of discretion by the court of first instance, and substitute its own discretion, except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the Court has ignored settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory orders. Therefore, it was contended that no case for interference in an intra-court appeal is made out. Thus the impugned order does not call for any indulgence by this Court.

46. We have considered the contentions advanced on either side and perused the material on record. Upon consideration of the material on record, the learned Single Judge has discussed the issue at length including on merits as well as law.

47. Section 5 of the 1971 Act deals with Amendment and updating of record of rights. Section 5A and 5B thereof states:

               “5-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, 26[where a person is an occupant] by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alienee or the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid.

               (2) On receipt of such application the Mandal Revenue Officer shall, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 as fixed by the registering officer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the basis of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as may be prescribed:

               Provided that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall not require the alienee or the transferee to deposit the amount under this sub-section unless he is satisfied that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Telangana Scheduled areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

               (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall be deemed to validate any alienation where such alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Telangana Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

               (4) The Mandal Revenue Officer on deposit of an amount specified in sub-section (2), shall issue a certificate to the alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate and such certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act, 1908, be evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him.

               (5) The Mandal Revenue Officer, shall on the production of the certificate issued under sub-section (2) make any entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property.

               (6) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5-A, the Tahsildar shall regularize claims of those applicants who apply not later than 31.12.2017 and have been in possession and do not have sada bainama (unregistered) document, based on enjoyment survey, local enquiry, approval of Gramsabha and it shall be limited upto Ac.5.00 gts.]

               5-B. (1) An Appeal shall lie against an order passed by the Tahsildar under sub-section (4) of section 5-A, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, within thirty days of the date of communication of the order and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall, after due enquiry pass such order on the appeal as he deems fit.

               (2) The Revenue Divisional Officer may suo-motu call for record of a case or proceedings from the Recording Authority and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and make suitable order in that behalf:

               Provided that no order or decision affecting the rights of the parties shall be made unless the concerned parties are given a notice and hearing and such order, shall, subject to revision under section 9, be final.”

48. The primary issue relates to the scope of Section 5-A of the 1971 Act and the validity of the regularization proceedings dated 21.09.1994. The material on record shows that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were put in possession pursuant to a transaction dated 16.02.1984 and that the balance sale consideration was subsequently paid before approaching the MRO for validation. Section 5-A of the 1971 Act recognizes possession based on an unregistered transfer, and the emphasis is on completed alienation and enjoyment of the land rather than the form of the document. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the transaction stood completed and was capable of being regularized, and therefore the objection that the document is only an agreement of sale, does not affect the validity of the proceedings.

49. Regarding the lack of jurisdiction of MRO to regularize the document, the record indicates that the proceedings under Section 5-A of the 1971 Act were initiated and concluded after considering the possession and the transaction between the parties. Therefore, the contention that such objection can be raised at any stage, does not support the appellants in the present facts, as the nature of the transaction and completion of consideration were already evident. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the objection regarding the nature of the document was not consistently raised earlier and cannot be used to unsettle the settled proceedings is in accordance with law.

50. On the issue of violation of principles of natural justice, the learned Single Judge has correctly relied upon the participation of the GPA holder of Writ Petitioner No.1 in the original proceedings as the record shows that the GPA holder had taken part in the enquiry and had not opposed the regularization. In such circumstances, the plea of non-issuance of notice to the original owner does not survive. The subsequent denial by Writ Petitioner No.1 does not supersede the earlier proceedings, particularly when the genuineness of the GPA was supported by the material placed before the authorities.

51. The validity of the appellate order dated 31.01.2004 passed by the RDO was also rightly examined as the Appeal was filed after a lapse of about eight years from the date of the original validation proceedings, when the statute prescribes a period of 30 days and does not provide for condonation of delay. The RDO entertained the appeal without addressing this delay. The revisional authority, therefore, was justified in setting aside such an order. The learned Single Judge has correctly held that once the remand order dated 31.01.2004 is set aside, all consequential proceedings including the order dated 28.06.2005 passed by the MRO would also fall.

52. Insofar as the objection raised by the appellants about invoking the revisional jurisdiction by respondent Nos.4 and 5 is concerned, the mere fact that respondent Nos.4 and 5 participated in the earlier proceedings does not take away their statutory right to invoke revision. Further, section 9 of the 1971 Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing a revision, and therefore the question of delay does not arise. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Revision filed after two years cannot be treated as defective and that the revisional authority was fully competent to examine the correctness of the order dated 31.01.2004.

53. The appellants purchased the property during the pendency of the proceedings and when status quo order was in force. Their application to come on record in the Revision was rejected and the same was not challenged. Further, Writ Petitioner No.1 himself sought withdrawal of the Writ Petition stating that it was filed without his consent. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the appellants cannot independently pursue the Writ Petition and seek relief.

54. The issues relating to fraud, collusion, and reliance on forensic reports involve disputed questions of fact relating to execution of documents and title over the property, which cannot be effectively examined in writ proceedings. Similarly, the claim of the appellants based on subsequent registered sale deeds, revenue entries, and benefits under Government Schemes does not confer a right to question earlier statutory proceedings in writ jurisdiction.

55. The revisional authority, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, has examined the matter and arrived at a proper conclusion. It has been observed that if the appellants have any right or interest in the subject property, it is open to them to approach a competent Civil Court and establish such rights. Thus, their remedies are not taken away but are only directed to approach the appropriate forum.

56. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the order passed by the revisional authority does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

57. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, in rejecting the claim of the appellants, are well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of the material on record. This Court finds no infirmity or perversity therein warranting its interference with the same.

58. We do not find it necessary to repeat that the discretion of the Appeal Court is extremely limited in an intra-Court Appeal, particularly where the first Court has exercised discretion in either allowing or dismissing a matter where the discretion has not been exercised on an arbitrary basis.

59. W.A.No.118 of 2024, along with all connected applications, is dismissed. Interim orders granted if any, shall stands vacated. No costs.