ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:

“......to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring that the order passed in the Proceedings of the 4th respondent in F3/SP.Tribunal/Kondapak/03/2021 dated 04.02.2021, is without giving opportunity as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of Natural Justice and also against the settled principles of law, in respect of the land Adm. Ac. 2.20 guntas of Sy. No. 271/18/A situated at Vellikatta Village, Kondapaka Mandal and quash the same and pass such other order or orders....”

2. Heard Sri. A. Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of Special Tribunal, Siddipet in the Revision preferred by the petitioner.

4. According to petitioner, he entered into an agreement of sale with Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha on 15.12.2007 on land to an extent of Ac. 3.00 in Sy. No. 271 of Vellikatta Village and paid the earnest money, but she avoided execution of registered sale-deed. Further, Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha colluded with Shanamgari Srinivas Chary and sold the land to him under registered sale-deed. Petitioner alleges that the said registration is illegal.

5. Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha is the owner of Ac. 3.00 guntas of land in Sy. No. 271. According to petitioner, an agreement of sale was entered with Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha on 15.12.2007 and part sale consideration was paid. While so, Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha executed registered sale-deed in favour of Shanamgari Srinivas Chary on the above extent of land. Based on the registered sale-deed, Shanamgari Srinivas Chary applied to the Tahsildar to mutate his name in the revenue records. In response to the notice issued by the Tahsildar on 19.06.2015 on the said application, petitioner filed objection contending that having executed agreement of sale and received part sale consideration, Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha could not have executed registered sale-deed as it is a collusive registered sale-deed and therefore, it should not be acted upon and mutation should not be granted to Shanamgari Srinivas Chary. Rejecting the objection of petitioner, the Tahsildar ordered mutation of the name of Shanamgari Srinivas Chary in the revenue records on the above extent of land and assigning separate sub-division showing as Survey Number 271/18A to an extent of Ac. 2.20 guntas. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, reiterating the same contentions. By order, dated 25.07.2018, the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the appeal affirming the view taken by the Tahsildar. Petitioner preferred Revision before the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). On constitution of Special Tribunal under Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (Act 9 of 2020), the said Revision was transferred to the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal by the order impugned herein, rejected the request affirming the view taken by the lower authorities.

6. All the authorities have consistently observed that petitioner has not challenged the validity of registered sale-deed and as long as registered sale-deed is subsisting, Shanamgari Srinivas Chary is entitled to seek mutation of his name in the revenue records. All the authorities have also referred to the suit in O.S. No. 151 of 2012 pending in the Court of Junior Civil Judge at Siddipet.

7. While learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that injunction suit was instituted and subsequently it was disposed of by recording compromise, a copy of the decree passed by the trial Court and the nature of compromise recorded by the trial Court are not placed before this Court.

8. Be that as it may, as noticed by the revenue authorities, the sale-deed executed and registered by Smt. Shanamga