The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari, to call for the records connected with the orders, dated 14.11.1994, 7.10.1995 and 12.11.1997, passed by respondent Nos.4, 3 and 2, respectively, and to quash the same, as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Record of Rights Act, 1971.

2. The 1st petitioner is the wife and 2nd petitioner is the son of late Kishta Reddy. The 1st respondent, Parvath Reddy, and Kishta Reddy are said to be brothers. Kishta Reddy died, leaving behind him, the petitioners as his legal representatives. The family held vast extents of agricultural lands, and a partition is said to have taken place between the brothers.

3. The 1st respondent filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balrmoor Mandal, the 4th respondent herein, with a prayer to validate an unregistered deed of partition, dated 14.2.1968, in respect of an extent of Acs.7-00 in Sy.No.27 of Balamoor village. He claimed that though he became absolute owner of that land, the relevant entries in the revenue records are made in favour of the petitioners herein. He accordingly prayed for validation of the unregistered partition deed, dated 14.2.1968, under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short "the Act").

4. The 4th respondent issued a notice to the petitioners, and through his order dated, 14.11.1994, not only validated the document, but declared that the 1st respondent is the rightful owner of Acs.7-00 of land in Sy.No.27. Petitioners filed an appeal, under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagerkurnool, the 3rd respondent. The appeal was dismissed by an order, dated 7.10.1995. Thereupon, the petitioners filed a revision, under Section 9 of the Act, before the 2nd respondent. The revision was also rejected, through order dated 12.11.1997.

5. Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the order passed by the 4th respondent, validating an unregistered partition deed and declaring the 1st respondent, as the rightful owner of the property, is without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 5-A of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. He contends that Section 5-A cannot be invoked to validate a deed of partition, since no transfer as such, takes place under it. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.N.SARIN v. AJIT KUMAR POPLAI1 and the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in SMT.CHANDERWATI v. LAKHMI CHAND & OTHERS2. Learned counsel further submits that even where a document is otherwise capable of being validated under Section 5-A of the Act, the Recording Authority under the Act, cannot undertake such an exercise, if there is dispute between the parties. In support of this contention, he places reliance upon the judgments of this court, in B. PUSHPAMMA v. JOINT COLLECTOR, R.R. DISTRICT3 and V. KRISHNAIAH & OTHERS v. JOINT COLLECTOR, MAHABOOBNAGAR4. He contends that the 2nd respondent has traveled, beyond the scope of the proceedings before her, and in a way, misused the statutory power conferred on her, by directing reopening of the proceedings under the A.P. Land Reforms (COAH) Act, 1973.

6. Sri S.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the legal representatives of the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that even under a partition, alienation of property takes place, and in that view of the matter, no illegality can be said to have crept into the order passed by the 4th respondent. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in KUPPUSWAMI CHETTIIAR v. A.S.P.A. ARMUGAM CHETTIAR5, KALE AND OTHERS v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & OTHERS6, and SUNIL SUDDHARTHBHAI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD7. He submits that under the deed of partition in question, the land of Acs.7-00 was allotted to the 1st respondent, and the effort by initiating the present set of proceedings, was only to get the record straight. H