1. The issue in the writ petition arises under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records leading up to and inclusive of order in file No.F3/2/ROR/98-F3/7282/97 dated 13.12.2003 and quash the same as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

3. The case of petitioners is that one B.Sathi Reddy, the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of 2nd petitioner, applied under Section 5-A of the Act for regularization of the alleged transfer under the Will dated 12.04.1984 stated to have been executed by his mother-in-law Chandamma. It is matter of record that at the first instance through order dated 11.12.1992 by receiving stamp duty of Rs.35/-, the MRO, Wargal Mandal regularized the Will dated 12.04.1984 and issued Form XIII-B certificate to him. The 1st respondent filed appeal/revision before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Medak and through order dated 04.07.1996, the 2nd respondent set aside the regularization order dated 11.12.1992 and remitted the matter back to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Wargal Mandal for de nova enquiry and a decision as per law. The MRO upon issuing notices to the parties concerned through order in file No.B/1275/96 dated 16.06.1997 confirmed the order of regularization dated 11.12.1992 in favour of B.Sathi Reddy. The 1st respondent preferred revision under Section 9 of the Act before the 2nd respondent. Through order dated 30.12.2003 in file No.F3/2/ROR/98-F3/7282/97, the 2nd respondent set aside the order of MRO dated 16.06.1997 and directed MRO, Wargal to effect necessary consequential changes in the village records as per the order of 2nd respondent. B.Sathi Reddy died during the pendency of revision before respondent No.2 and the writ petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2003, the present writ petition is filed by the wife and son of B.Sathi Reddy.

4. A reading of the order dated 13.12.2003 prima facie discloses that the impugned order is passed firstly without considering the material available on record and secondly non-application of mind is evident in extracting the contentions of parties or the documents they relied upon. The 1st respondent relies upon the sale deed in support of her claim for entries in revenue record. The finding recorded by 2nd respondent is that the sale deed is a fake document. If this finding is accepted, the result ought to have been that the revision filed by the 1st respondent should have been dismissed. The 2nd respondent curiously had set aside the order of MRO dated 16.06.1997. The order of 2nd respondent does not observe whether the case before him is allowed or dismissed. This illegality is writ large on the face of the order impugned. On this aspect of the matter, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent fairly conceded that the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained by reference to the reasons recorded by the 2nd respondent. In normal course, by recording the fair concession of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the writ petition is allowed and the matter remitted to the 2nd respondent. The Court has to consider the other legal contention of 1st respondent which if agreed will give a different outcome to the result of the writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for 1st respondent has urged a legal objection on the maintainability of application under Section 5-A of the Act for regularization of a Will and issuance of a certificate in Form 13-B. The objection is that the writ petitioners are placing reliance upon the Will dated 13.04.1984 said to have been executed by late Chandamma, w/o Venkat Reddy. The said Chandamma relies upon a declaratory deed stated to have been executed on 14.07.1974 by one Andalamma and