Point of Law :
It is true that whenever there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, the courts can be approached for a declaration that the order is void or for setting aside the same. Here the parties have approached this Court because the orders of the Department were consequential to the orders of this Court. The question however is whether the Court in exercise of its discretion under Article 32 or Article 226 can refuse to exercise discretion on facts or on the ground that no de facto prejudice is established

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri. K. Manik Prabhu learned counsel for petitioners, Sri. A. Venkatesh learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 and learned Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2, 11 and 12.

2. According to petitioners, their father and brothers of his father jointly purchased land to an extent of Ac. 6.25 guntas in Survey No. 34, Kunuru village of Bhongir mandal, Nalgonda district by way of sada sale-deed dated 26.6.1979 from Mulle Rajeshwar and Kalakuntla Venkata Narsaiah for a valid sale consideration and in pursuant thereof, possession was vested in them. In the family partition between brothers, land to an extent of Ac. 3.05 guntas fell to the share of father of petitioners and land to an extent of Ac. 3.20 guntas fell to the share of brothers of father of petitioners i.e. Saloman. After death of their father, the property devolved upon them and after death of Soloman, his share of property devolved upon respondents 7 to 10. Under Section 5-A of The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short the Act, 1971), they applied for validation of sada sale-deed. By following the procedure as required by the Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder, the sada sale-deed was validated and Section 13-B certificate was issued to the father of petitioners and father of respondents 7 to 10 vide proceedings dated 5.2.2007. In view thereof, petitioners and respondents 7 to 10 have become absolute owners and are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Their names were also mutated in the revenue records deleting the name of late Rajeshwar Rao and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to them. On 22.11.2010, the Revenue Divisional Officer 12th respondent granted no objection certificate to father of petitioners and his brother to sell land to an extent of Ac. 3.20 guntas and legal heirs of Saloman sold land to Sri Sri Homes Private Limited 13th respondent vide registered sale-deed dated 28.6.2012. While so, respondents 3 to 5 claiming themselves as legal heirs of late Rajeshwar Rao, filed appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 5 (5) of the Act, 1971 and sought cancellation of the proceedings dated 5.2.2007 and pattadar pass books and title deeds. The Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelled the proceedings of validation of sada sale-deed, pattadar pass books and title deeds and consequential entries in the revenue records, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for conducting denovo enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners preferred revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. The Revisional Authority, confirmed the order of remand by order dated 30.1.2018, impugned in this writ petition.

3.1. According to learned counsel for petitioners against validation of unregistered sale- deed under Section 5-A of the Act, 1971, remedy of appeal is available only under Section 5-B of the Act, 1971 and not under Section 5 (5) of the Act, 1971, whereas, appeal was preferred under Section 5 (5) of the Act, 1971 before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same is not maintainable and the Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have dismissed the same on that ground. The Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, failed to appreciate this aspect and orders are vitiated on this ground alone.

3.2. He further contended that Rule 22 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 prescribe procedure of service of notice on any application made for correction of entries in the revenue records/updation of entries in the revenue records. In terms thereof, notice has to be served on the person to the known address and for any reasons the person is not available, the notice can be affixed on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat. The revenue records reflect the name of Sri Rajeshwar Rao and his death was not informed to the revenue authorities. The legal heirs have not taken steps for amendment of the revenue records reflecting their names, therefore, Rule 22 was complied by affixi