IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the need for evidence, pleading, and proof in deciding matters of title and regularization under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

'..to issue a writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction, order or orders calling for the records relating to the order dtd. 5/11/2011 passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.Dis (E-10) 4106/2011 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and void...'

2. This Court has heard Sri V.Eswaraiah Choudary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri P.Gangirami Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.

3. The writ petition was initially filed by one T.Nageswara Rao and after his death; his brother is continuing the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter at length and extensively. According to him, the impugned order dtd. 5/11/2011, passed by the Joint Collector-respondent No.1, is totally contrary to law. The petitioner claims title to the property involved in this dispute through his brother T.Nageswara Rao, who executed a Will in his favour bequeathing the property to him. He therefore claims absolute right to the property. According to the writ petitioner, it was realized that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have manipulated the records, created documents and secured Pattadar Pass Books etc., for the very same land. The original petitioners commenced legal action. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner's brother has not executed a valid sale deed in favour of the respondents, in that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are claiming title through an alleged agreement of sale which is also not on record. According to him, the agreement of sale does not confer any title and that the respondents did not even get the same adjudicated under law. He also submits that in the absence of validation, the respondents do not have any right over the property and that the revenue authorities overlooked the same. It is also submitted that on the basis of an unregistered Will also, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are claiming rights. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Telangana high Court reported in D.Sudhakar Reddy v. Joint Collector, (Telangana), 2020 (5) ALT 270 and Nadiminti Varalakshmi and another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada and others., 2014 (1) ALD 677 in support of his submissions. Therefore, he prays for a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dtd. 5/11/2011.

5. In reply to this, learned Government Pleader for Revenue argues the matter on behalf of the State. He points out that after following the due process, the rights of respondent Nos.4 and 5 were recognized. He also points out that the revision was filed by the petitioner's brother in 2007, whereas he had executed an agreement in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 15/4/1983. He also did not exercise the statutory right and file an appeal within the stipulated period as the Pattadar Pass Books were also issued to C.Venkata Ramanamma in December, 1989. She in turn bequeathed the property to respondent No.4. Thereafter, by following the procedure, the Pattadar Pass Books were also issued to respondent Nos.3 and 4.

6. For respondent Nos.4 and 5, Sri P.Gangirami Reddy argued the matter. It is his contention that the petitioner's brother T.Nageswara Rao sold the property to C.Venkata Ramanamma through an agreement of sale dtd. 15/4/1983 and delivered possession of the land. She paid taxes and obtained the Pattadar Pass Book in January, 1989. Thereafter, the said Venkata Ramanamma executed a Will in favour of the 4th respondent who became the absolute owner of the property. It is also argued that under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), a period of 30 days is provided to the party to make an appeal under Sec. 5-A of the Act. In this case, the order under Sec. 5-A was passed on 14/12/1997, but the appeal was filed on 21/8/2010. Yet the 2nd respondent entertain