The petitioners challenge the proceedings dated 29.08.2007 issued by the Tahsildar, Maklur Mandal, 1st respondent herein under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) validating certain transactions in respect of an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas in Survey No.322 and Ac.0.37½ guntas in Survey No.335 of Manik Bhandar Village, Maklur Mandal, Nizamabad District.

Petitioners 1 and 2 are the daughters and the 3rd petitioner is the wife of one late Sri Vakeel Linga Reddy. He was the pattadar of the land referred to above. The petitioners contend that after the death of Linga Reddy, they succeeded to the land and approached the 1st respondent with a request to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour. Through a memo, dated 30.03.2012, the 1st respondent informed the petitioners that according to the information contained in the office records, Linga Reddy sold the said land through an agreement of sale on 26.12.1999 in favour of one Sri Gangadasu S/o. Lakshman and the latter in turn transferred the same in favour of Gundala Lakapati Chinna Gangadhar under an agreement of sale dated 01.06.2001.

He further stated that on an application submitted by Lakapati Rajubai W/o. Gangadhar, 2nd respondent herein, under Section 5-A of the Act, the validation proceedings were issued on 29.08.2007.

The petitioners submit that the entire exercise undertaken by the 1st respondent in passing the order, dated 29.08.2007 under Section 5-A of the Act is totally untenable. They submit that no notice was issued by the 1st respondent before the impugned order was passed. Another contention is that the validation, if at all, ought to have been of the so-called agreement of sale, dated 26.12.1999 alleged to have been executed by Linga Reddy in favour of Gangadasu. It is urged that when Gangadasu himself did not get any title, there was no basis for him to convey the property to Gangadhar, much less for Gangadhar to convey the property to his wife i.e., 2nd respondent herein. Other grounds are also urged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. He contends that Linga Reddy did not execute any agreement of sale at all and in case, the 1st respondent received any application under Section 5-A, the first and foremost duty was to issue notice to the legal representatives of the person, who is said to have executed the agreement. Learned counsel further submits that when the alleged agreement of sale was in favour of Gangadasu, there was no occasion for the 1st respondent to pass orders of validation in favour of the 2nd respondent.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 5-B of the Act and the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits the 1st respondent has taken every step in accordance with law. Notice Before Admission was ordered by this Court on 26.04.2012 and the petitioners were permitted to serve notice. When the notices taken out to respondents 2 to 4 were returned unserved, permission was accorded to effect substituted service. Proof thereof is also filed. However, respondents 2 to 4 did not enter appearance.

The entries in the revenue records would reflect the existence of title in favour of an individual, in respect of any piece of agricultural land. The title may accrue to an individual, either through succession or through transfer made in accordance with law or through a decree passed by a competent Court of law. Whenever rights are claimed on the basis of purchase, it is only the registered sale deed, that can be taken into account.

Since the transactions of sale take place in villages, many a time, under unregistered documents, the Legislature provided certain mechanisms for validation of such transactions. Section 5-A of the Act was added in the Act with an objective of