G. Rohini, J.

This matter is listed before us pursuant to the Order of Reference, dated 23.10.2008 made by a learned Single Judge in view of a conflict between two Division Bench decisions i.e., M.B. RATNAM v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.R. DISTRICT (2003 (1) ALD 826 (DB) and K.R. GOUD v. BHAVANARISHI CO-OP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY (2003 (5) ALD 654 (DB) with regard to the maintainability of the Revision Petition against an order under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘ROR Act’).

2. For proper appreciation of the question that requires consideration by this Bench, it is necessary to notice the facts in brief.

3. The 1st petitioner executed an unregistered Agreement of Sale, dated 25.7.1980 in favour of the petitioners 2 to 4 in respect of Ac.0-28.12 guntas (3.403 square yards) of land situated in Sy.No.20 of Habsiguda, Rangareddy District and delivered possession. On 21.7.1989 the petitioners 2 to 4 made an application under Section 5-A of the ROR Act as amended by A.P. Act 1 of 1989 for validation of the transaction dated 25.7.1980. After due enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a validation certificate dated 9.5.1990. Against the said order, the respondents 2 to 7 herein filed a Revision Petition on 07.07.1995 under Section 9 of the ROR Act before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District. The said Revision Petition was allowed by order dated 18.2.2002 thereby setting aside the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a Certiorari to quash the order dated 18.2.2002 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

4. It is primarily contended by the petitioners that the Joint Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act as amended by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 with effect from 31.10.1993 against the validation order dated 9.5.1990 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the ROR Act.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, while denying the plea that the 1st petitioner alienated the land in question to the petitioners 2 to 4 under an un-registered Agreement of Sale, dated 25.07.1980 and delivered possession, it is contended that the so-called unregistered agreement had been fabricated for the purpose of the present case. It is further contended that in fact the land in question was a non-agricultural land and therefore the proceedings for validation of the transaction under Section 5-A of the ROR Act were not maintainable at all. It is also contended that the Joint Collector after perusing the material available on record and after hearing both the parties while recording a finding that it was a non-agricultural land had rightly set aside the validation order made under Section 5-A of the Act. While pointing out that whereas the alleged agreement of sale was executed on 25.7.1980, the petitioners sought for validation under Section 5-A only in the year 1989, it is also contended that there were no bona fides on the part of the petitioners.

6. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.B. RATNAM’S case (1 supra) in support of his contention that the Joint Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Petition under Section 9 as amended with effect from 31.10.1993 against the order dated 9.5.1990 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the Act. Another Division Bench judgment in K.R. GOUD’S case (2 supra) was also brought to the notice of the leaned Single Judge. Observing that there is a conflict between the above said two decisions, the learned Single Judge by order dated 23.10.2008 referred the matter for consideration by Full Bench. That is how the matter is placed before us.

7. We have heard Sri K. Ramakrishna Red