ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 22.06.2013 in Case No.D1/13/2009 passed by respondent No.2, confirming the order, dated 22.10.2008, in Case No.B/RoR/ 1087/2008 passed by respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Ms. M.Harthika, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 10.

3. In nut-shell the facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that the petitioner is owner of land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.282 of Nandigama Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”), having purchased the same under registered Sale Deed No.7001/2008 dated 07.07.2008 from one Mailaram Sulochana; that the petitioner’s vendor purchased the subject land under registered Sale Deed No.2982/2008 dated 25.03.2008 from the previous owners i.e., respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are the sons of late Jangili Laxmaiah.

3.1. It is further averred that originally, land admeasuring Ac.1-20 gts belonged to the father of respondent Nos.6 and 7, namely Jangili Laxmaiah; and that after his death, they applied for succession, and under proceedings in File No.A1/4139/2005 dated 27.12.2005, succession was granted in their favour.

3.2. It is further averred that respondent No.5, who is the sister of respondent Nos.6 and 7, filed an application under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for brevity, “ROR Act, 1971”) before respondent No.4 for regularization of an alleged unregistered sale deed dated 08.09.1995 under which her father sold an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.282 for consideration. She further claimed that herself and her father jointly purchased Acs.3-00 gts of land in Sy.Nos.282 and 283 under registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1649/1985, and that each of them had an equal share in it.

3.3. It is further averred that the application of respondent No.5 was dismissed by respondent No.4, vide orders dated 24.01.2008. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971. By order, dated 22.10.2008, respondent No.3 allowed the appeal and directed respondent No.4 to enter the name of respondent No.5 by deleting the entries in the names of respondent Nos.6 to 8 in respect of an extent of Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.282. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.6 to 8 filed a revision petition before respondent No.2, which was dismissed on 22.06.2013. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed by the subsequent purchaser from respondent Nos.6 and 7.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.282 of Nandigama Village under registered Sale Deed No.70001/2008 dated 07.07.2008, from one Mailaram Sulochana and that, neither the petitioner nor his vendor was informed by respondent Nos.6 to 8, who are predecessors-in-title, about the pendency of the application filed by respondent No.5 in respect of the subject land before the revenue authorities.

4.1. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that a document produced for regularization under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971 read with Rule 22 of the ROR Rules, 1989 must be an undisputed document. The alleged alienator-Jangili Laxmaiah, is no longer alive, and the contents of the document indicate that it is in the nature of an agreement of sale rather than a sale deed.

4.2. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that when respondent Nos.6 to 8 have categorically denied the genuineness of the alleged unregistered sale deed dated 08.09.1995, the validity and genuineness of such unregistered document ought to be examined by a competent civil Court and the only course available to the revenue authorities was to direct respondent No.5 to approach a competent civil Court for appropriate relief. Howe