The petitioners are the sons of late Venkatanna of Jinnaram Village, Narva Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. Venkatanna was the owner of Ac.15.35 gts., of land in Sy.No.96 of that village. On his death, the petitioners herein filed an application dated 08-01-1989 under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short the Act), and the Rules made thereunder, before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narva, the 3rd respondent, for grant of succession. After conducting due enquiry, the 3rd respondent sanctioned succession in favour of the petitioners, through his order dated 20-04-1989.

2. Respondents 4 and 5 filed an application on 30-06-1989 before the 3rd respondent under Section 5-A of the Act read with Rule 22, for regularization of the sale in their favour, in respect of the very land in Sy.No.96. According to them, their ancestor by name, Vakiti Ramanna, purchased the property through an unregistered sale deed dated 18-05-1959, for a consideration of Rs.1,500/- from Venkatanna, and that in the family partition, it has fallen to their share. They prayed for regularization of the sale in their favour.

3. The 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 22-05-1995, regularizing the sale in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and directing· necessary amendments of entries in the revenue records. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 5-8 of the Act, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 2nd respondent. The appeal was allowed on 21-12-1996. Thereupon, the respondents 4 and 5 filed a revision before the Joint Collector, the 1st respondent, under Section 9 of the Act. The 1 sl respondent allowed the revision and had sustained the order passed by the 3rd respondent, regularizing the sale in favour of the respondents 4 and 5.

4. The petitioners contend that the proceedings initiated against them, under Section 5-A, are untenable, both on facts and in law. It is stated that the document in question relied upon by the respondents 4 and 5, is fabricated one, and that the 3rd respondent exceeded the scope of enquiry under the relevant provisions. On facts also, they contend that, when hardly two months before the application under Section 5-8 (sic.5-A), succession was granted to them, there was absolutely no justification for the 3rd respondent in regularising the alleged sale, in favour of the respondents 4 and 5. They also complained of, the violation of the procedure, particularly the one, contemplated under Rule 13 of the Rules.

5. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, counter affidavit is filed, stating, in detail, the circumstances that led to the regularization of the sale in favour of respondents 4 and 5. It is stated that the petitioners were given ample opportunity to put forward their case, and after conducting inspection on the spot, and verification of the facts from reliable sources, the 3rd respondent had regularized the sale in question. Respondents 4 and 5 have also filed counter affidavit, stating that respondents 1 and 3 have passed orders in their favour, strictly in accordance with law. They narrated the nature of rights, said to have been exercised by them, in respect of the land in question. In all respects, they reiterated the contention advanced before the respondents 1 and 3.

6. Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the regularization of sales, contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act, is limited to the cases, where there is no dispute, as to the execution of unregistered sale deed. He contends that if the execution is disputed, the concerned party has to work out the remedies in a Court of law. Learned counsel points out that the very fact that enactments, such as the Limitation Act are not saved: discloses that a remedy, which is otherwise is barred, for a purchaser under an agreement of sale, or a sale deed, cannot be granted under the Act and the Rules, in the event of any dispute. He submits that the 2nd respondent had