( 1 ) M. KOTILINGAM, writ petitioner, is questioning the order passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 1st respondent herein, in File No. B1/ 7643/93 dated 24-6-1996 whereunder it was held that the sale transaction covered by an agreement of sale was held to be valid and the order of the Revenue Divisional officer, Chevelia in File No. C/541/91, dated 13-12-1991 was set aside and the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar, rangareddy District dated 18-1-1991 was confirmed.

( 2 ) THE short question which had been argued by the Counsel on record is whether the impugned order can be sustained in the light of the fact that the property in question being covered by only an agreement of sale.

( 3 ) THE 3rd respondent S. Nagamani filed an application before the 2nd respondent for grant of patta in respect of Ac. 1-06 guntas and Ac. 0-11 guntas in S. No. l54/la and 155/1 at Kokapet Village. It is stated that s. No-154/la is of an extent of Acs. 6-12 guntas of patta land and in Column No. 13, the name of the writ petitioner along with his brothers had been shown and pahani patrikas of the year 1984-85 also contained the same entries. It is stated that the 3rd respondent was in never possession at all. It is also stated that no suit for specific performance was filed in this regard and a suit O. S. No. 213/89 for partition in respect of the suit property had been filed in the competent Civil Court. The 2nd respondent herein on the application made by the 3rd respondent had passed an order in favour of the 3rd respondent on the strength of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the writ petitioner on 3-9-1980 for a sale consideration of Rs. 12,500/ -. It is stated that the writ petitioner had received an amount of Rs. 9,000/- under a receipt dated 15-4-1980 and it is also stated that the 3rd respondent further paid an amount of Rs. 3,000/- and since the A. P. Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 came into force, the present action had been initiated. The order of the Mandal revenue Officer was set aside holding that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar had erroneously validated the agreement of sale contrary to the provisions of A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent herein filed revision under Section 9 of the Act before the 1st respondent who had restored the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer by setting aside the orders of the Revenue divisional Officer referred to supra.

( 4 ) HENCE the present writ petition.

( 5 ) APART from the fact that a partition suit was filed in relation to the self-same property as referred to supra, it is also not in controversy that the 3rd respondent had not filed any suit for the relief of specific performance and as can be seen from the findings recorded by the 1st respondent, the total consideration due under the agreement of sale also had not been paid.

( 6 ) THE Act, Act 26 of 1971, as amended by Act 11 of 1980, 1 of 1989, 24 of 1989, 9 of 1994 and 16 of 2001 is an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 5-A of the Act dealing with regularisation of certain alienations or other transfers of lands had been newly introduced by A. P. Act 1 of 1989 and this provision provides for regularization of certain alienations or other transfers of lands by mandal Revenue Officer notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or the registration Act or the Transfer of Property act or any other law for the time being in force and the provision reads as hereunder : (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, where a person is an occupant by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by