JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel appears for the appellants.

Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. This intra court appeal emanates from an order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge by which Writ Petition No.37864 of 2018 preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that one Smt. Radha Bai Dubey was the owner and in possession of land situate in Survey Nos.35 and 36 of Vattinagulapally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. On her death, the property devolved on her three sons. Each one of the sons succeeded to an extent of land measuring Acs.10.28 guntas. An agreement of sale dated 15.07.1978 was executed by all the three sons of aforesaid late Smt. Radha Bai Dubey in favour of one T. Sathaiah at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per acre. Thereafter, one of the sons, namely, Shyamlal Prasad Dubey and other two brothers have executed registered sale deeds in favour of the son of aforesaid T. Sattaiah in respect of land measuring 25 acres in Survey Nos.35 and 36 which includes a part of the land covered under the agreement of sale. Aforesaid Sattaiah approached the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar, seeking regularization of sale in respect of land measuring Acs.6.30 guntas situate in Survey Nos.35 and 36 on the strength of agreement of sale under Section 5A of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1971 Act’). The Tahsildar by an order dated 22.10.1994 directed regularization in respect of an area measuring Acs.6.30 guntas. 4. Thereafter, Smt. Uma Dubey, namely, respondent No.5 in this appeal, daughter of late Shyamlal Prasad Dubey approached the Tahsildar and submitted an application on

27.10.2014 under Right to Information Act, 2005. She obtained a copy of the proceeding dated 22.10.1994 by which the land measuring Acs.6.30 guntas was regularized in favour of the appellants. Thereupon, respondent No.5 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer who by an order dated 01.10.2016 set aside the regularization proceeding and directed restoration of original entries in the revenue record existing prior to regularization.

5. The appellants thereupon filed a revision under Section 9 of the 1971 Act which was dismissed by the Joint Collector vide order dated 18.08.2018. The appellants challenged the aforesaid order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the Joint Collector and order dated 01.10.2016 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in Writ Petition No.37864 of 2018. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 has dismissed the Writ Petition.

In the aforesaid factual background, this Writ Appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the notice of the proceeding of regularization was served on the father of respondent No.5. It is further submitted that the power of revision cannot be exercised after an inordinate delay of 20 years. It is also urged that an agreement of sale can be made as the basis for regularisation under Section 5A of the 1971 Act. It is also urged that the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Joint Collector ought to have appreciated that respondent No.5 had no subsisting land as on the date of filing of the appeal.

7. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5 has supported the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.

9. Section 5A of the 1971 Act is extracted below for the facility of reference.

5-A Regularisation of certain alienations or other transfers of lands:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, where a person is an occupant by virtue of an a