P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) M. KOTILINGAM, writ petitioner, is questioning the order passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 1st respondent herein, in File No. B1/ 7643/93 dated 24-6-1996 whereunder it was held that the sale transaction covered by an agreement of sale was held to be valid and the order of the Revenue Divisional officer, Chevelia in File No. C/541/91, dated 13-12-1991 was set aside and the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar, rangareddy District dated 18-1-1991 was confirmed. ( 2 ) THE short question which had been argued by the Counsel on record is whether the impugned order can be sustained in the light of the fact that the property in question being covered by only an agreement of sale. ( 3 ) THE 3rd respondent S. Nagamani filed an application before the 2nd respondent for grant of patta in respect of Ac. 1-06 guntas and Ac. 0-11 guntas in S. No. l54/la and 155/1 at Kokapet Village. It is stated that s. No-154/la is of an extent of Acs. 6-12 guntas of patta land and in Column No. 13, the name of the writ petitioner along with his brothers had been shown and pahani patrikas of the year 1984-85 also contained the same entries. It is stated that the 3rd respondent was in never possession at all. It is also stated that no suit for specific performance was filed in this regard and a suit O. S. No. 213/89 for partition in respect of the suit property had been filed in the competent Civil Court. The 2nd respondent herein on the application made by the 3rd respondent had passed an order in favour of the 3rd respondent on the strength of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the writ petitioner on 3-9-1980 for a sale consideration of Rs. 12,500/ -. It is stated that the writ petitioner had received an amount of Rs. 9,000/- under a receipt dated 15-4-1980 and it is also stated that the 3rd respondent further paid an amount of Rs. 3,000/- and since the A. P. Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 came into force, the present action had been initiated. 12,500/ -. It is stated that the writ petitioner had received an amount of Rs. 9,000/- under a receipt dated 15-4-1980 and it is also stated that the 3rd respondent further paid an amount of Rs. 3,000/- and since the A. P. Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 came into force, the present action had been initiated. The order of the Mandal revenue Officer was set aside holding that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar had erroneously validated the agreement of sale contrary to the provisions of A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent herein filed revision under Section 9 of the Act before the 1st respondent who had restored the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer by setting aside the orders of the Revenue divisional Officer referred to supra. ( 4 ) HENCE the present writ petition. ( 5 ) APART from the fact that a partition suit was filed in relation to the self-same property as referred to supra, it is also not in controversy that the 3rd respondent had not filed any suit for the relief of specific performance and as can be seen from the findings recorded by the 1st respondent, the total consideration due under the agreement of sale also had not been paid. ( 6 ) THE Act, Act 26 of 1971, as amended by Act 11 of 1980, 1 of 1989, 24 of 1989, 9 of 1994 and 16 of 2001 is an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books in the State of Andhra Pradesh. ( 6 ) THE Act, Act 26 of 1971, as amended by Act 11 of 1980, 1 of 1989, 24 of 1989, 9 of 1994 and 16 of 2001 is an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 5-A of the Act dealing with regularisation of certain alienations or other transfers of lands had been newly introduced by A. P. Act 1 of 1989 and this provision provides for regularization of certain alienations or other transfers of lands by mandal Revenue Officer notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or the registration Act or the Transfer of Property act or any other law for the time being in force and the provision reads as hereunder : (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 alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alienee or the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid. (2) On receipt of such application, the mandal Revenue Officer shall after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the registration Act, 1908 as fixed by the registering Officer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the basis of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as may be prescribed: provided that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall not require the alienee or the transferee to deposit the amount under this sub-section unless he is satisfied that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of the andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Celling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act, 1976, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall be deemed to validate any alienation where such alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of transfers) Act, 1977. (4) The Mandal Revenue Officer on deposit of an amount specified in sub-section (2), shall issue a certificate to the alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate and such certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act, 1908 be evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him. (5) The recording authority, shall on the production of the certificate issued under sub-section (2) make any entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property. Section 8 of the Act dealing with Bar of suits reads as hereunder : (1) No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to any entry made in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended. (2) If any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any Record of Rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the Record of Rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. Section 11 of the Act deals with power to make Rules. The A. P. Rights in Land and pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, in short referred to as "rules" hereinafter, were made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11 (1) of the Act. Section 11 of the Act deals with power to make Rules. The A. P. Rights in Land and pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, in short referred to as "rules" hereinafter, were made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11 (1) of the Act. Rule 22 of the rules dealing with regularisation of certain alienations or transfers of land reads as hereunder: (1) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue a general Notification in Form No. IX, calling for applications from the persons who are recorded as occupants in adangal/pahani Patrika or in Record of rights prepared earlier by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document for declaring such alienation as valid. Such notification shall be published in the District Gazette in which the village is situated and also in the following manner, namely, (i) by affixture in the chavadi or if there is no chavadi, in any other conspicuous place of the village; (ii) by affixture on the notice boards at the Gram Panchayat Office, Primary agricultural Co-operative Society and school if any; (iii) by beat of tom tom in the village; (iv) by affixture on the notice board of the Mandal Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the village; and (v) by affixture on the notice board of office of the Mandal Praja Parishad in which the village is situate. (2) The alienee or transferee shall file application in Form X on or before 31-10-1998 on the notification issued under sub-rule (1), to the Mandal revenue Officer, provided the alienation/ transfer took place before 31-7-1989. (3) On receipt of the application under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue notice to the alienor or transferor in Form No. XI specifying therein the date on which and the time at which he proposes to enquire into the application. He shall also cause to issue a notice in form No. XII to all other persons believed to be interested in the land specifying therein, date, time and place at which he proposes to enquire into the application. Only unregistered documents shall be considered under Section 5-A of the Act. He shall also cause to issue a notice in form No. XII to all other persons believed to be interested in the land specifying therein, date, time and place at which he proposes to enquire into the application. Only unregistered documents shall be considered under Section 5-A of the Act. (4) On the day so appointed or any other day to which the enquiry may be adjourned by him, the Mandal Revenue officer shall after hearing the parties and on examining their documents and witnesses, if any, and after taking such further evidence as he may consider necessary to satisfy himself that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of any of the provisions of the Acts referred to in Rule 9 (i) (a) (iv) complete the enquiry. (5) After completion of the enquiry under sub-rule (4) above, the Mandal revenue Officer shall require the alienee or the transferee under section 5 (A) of the Act, to deposit through a challan in the treasury an amount equal to the registration fees and stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration act, 1908 as fixed by the Registering officer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer in form No. XIIIA, on the basis of the value of the property arrived, within the time fixed by the Mandal Revenue officer, not exceeding one month from the date of communication and receipt of the order: provided that in case the Mandal revenue Officer considers it expedient he may grant further extension of time. 00 On the deposit of the amounts through a challan in the treasury as under clause (i), the Mandal Revenue officer shall issue a certificate in Form no. XIII-B as required under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act to the alienee or the transferee declaring that alienation or transfer is valid from the date of such certificate. 00 On the deposit of the amounts through a challan in the treasury as under clause (i), the Mandal Revenue officer shall issue a certificate in Form no. XIII-B as required under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act to the alienee or the transferee declaring that alienation or transfer is valid from the date of such certificate. (iii) A copy of every such certificate shall be communicated in Form XIII-C by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the sub-Registrar having jurisdiction over the area in which the land in respect of which the certificate has been granted is situate and the Sub-Registrar shall file the certificate in the relevant registration records and index them after ensuring collection of registration fee and stamp duty from the party under clause (i ). (6) The Recording Authority shall on production of the certificate issued under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the act make an entry in the Record of rights in Forms 1 and 1b to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property from the date of the issue of the said certificate. The Recording authority and the Mandal Revenue officer shall make necessary entries in the Record of Rights in land in Forms 1 and 1b under proper attestation and referencing to files of the Mandal revenue Officer. (7) Thereafter a title deed and pass book shall be issued to the occupant in the category of owner-Pattadar. Rule 27 (4) of the Rules specifies as hereunder: "wherever a Court decree about acquisition of title by purchase of land through deeds on plain paper or by oral purchase is received from Court or presented to the Mandal revenue Officer for implementing and incorporating charges in the Record of rights and Pattadar Pass Books, the Mandal revenue Officer shall incorporate changes in the Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass book, based on Court decree only after collection of stamp duty and registration fee on the sale price of the land or market value of the land whichever is higher. If the person seeking execution of Court decree claims that he had already paid proper and adequate stamp duty in the Court and produces certificate issued by the Court to this effect and other evidence to the satisfaction of Mandal Revenue Officer, the mandal Revenue Officer shall demand and collect only registration fee and incorporate changes in the Record of Rights and Pattadar pass Books. If the decree is received or produced by or before a Registration Officer or other officers, these officers shall immediately send these decrees to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer for necessary action. "in K. Siddiah Naidu v. District Collector, 1999 (5) ALT 480, where the petitioner therein approached the Mandal Revenue officer seeking change of entries in respect of certain land in revenue record solely based on an agreement of sale and the record showed serious dispute with regard to title and possession of the said land between the petitioner and the 5th respondent-Math therein, it was held that the question of title and possession being a question of fact cannot be decided by mandal Revenue Officer and unless title to the property is decided, change of entries cannot be made by Revenue Officials and the impugned order made by the Revenue authorities directing the petitioner to get his title settled first in a Civil Court before approaching them for appropriate relief is neither illegal nor irregular. In K. Seetharama reddy v. Hassan All Khan, 2003 (1) ALD 563 - 2003 (1) ALT 276 (DB), a Division bench of this Court while dealing with regularization of alienations by Mandal revenue Officer under Sections 5-A and 8 of the Act held that agreement of sale simpliciter is not enough for regularization of unregistered document under Section 5-A of the Act and only in cases where document is written on stamp paper, entire consideration passed and possession transferred and only formalities of registration remained to be completed regularization was held to be permissible under Section 5-A of the Act. In Konkana Ravinder Goud and others v. Bhavanarishi Co-operative house Building Society, Hyderabad, 2003 (5) ALD 654 = 2003 (6) ALT 1 (DB), yet another Division Bench of this Court while deciding W. A. No. 1384/2002 and Batch on 5-9-2003 held at Paras 54, 55, 56, 57 and 67 as hereunder :"the question whether agreement of sale can be treated as alienation or transfer within the scope and meaning of Section 5-A of the Act will have to be decided keeping in view the purpose with which this provision was inserted in the main Act enabling the mandal Revenue Officer to pass appropriate orders for regularisation of alienations or other transfers of land not effected by registered documents in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The Society filed applications seeking regularisation of agreement of sale, treating it to be a transfer of the land by the vendors. On the face of it, the two documents are nothing but agreements of sale by which the vendors had agreed to transfer and convey their land to the Society. The same cannot be termed as contract of sale but only agreements by which vendors had agreed to transfer and convey their title in favour of the Society on fulfilment of certain conditions; therefore, the same cannot be termed as a complete act of sale. The word "transfer" has not been defined under the act. Therefore, the question before us is as to the meaning to be given to the word "transfer" - whether it is a dictionary meaning or meaning as is ordinarily understood in the general sense of the term as defined in the law governing transfer of immovable properties i. e. , Transfer of Property Act. Once the Legislature in its wisdom has neither defined the word "transfer" in any of the definitions of the Act nor has clarified it, we are of the view that in such a situation one must look into the primary object of the provision, which in this case is only regularisation of the transfer of the land. There was already a provision in the Act as regards transfers effected by registered documents and to give effect to such transfers. There was already a provision in the Act as regards transfers effected by registered documents and to give effect to such transfers. Transfers, not evidenced by any registered document, would not confer any right, title or interest on the transferee even as per Section 54 of the Transfer of property Act read with Section 17 of the registration Act. The sole purpose of regularisation of such transfers, effected otherwise than by registered document is to keep the Record of Right update. Only on the Mandal Revenue Officer satisfying that the transfer or alienation has been effected by an unregistered document he has authority to call upon the transferee to pay the requisite registration and stamp duty after further ensuring that the such transfer or alienation is not in contravention of any provisions of law, he is obliged to issue necessary certificate to the alienee or transferee. Such certificate notwithstanding anything contained in Registration Act, 1908 has the effect of "transfer" as evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienee or transferor or any person claiming interest under him. " in the light of this salutary object contained in the Act, the word transfer obviously is to be construed to mean transfer as is understood in general sense of the term as defined in Transfer of Property Act which is the statute that governs all transfers of movable or immovable properties. The word "transfer" has been defined under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act with reference to the word "convey". Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act reads thus: section 5 : Transfer of Property defined : In the following sections "transfer of property" means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself and one or more other living persons; and "to transfer property" is to perform such act. The word, "transfer" thus being a term of well-known legal significance having well ascertained incidents, the Legislature did not think it necessary to define the term "transfer" separately in the Act. The word, "transfer" thus being a term of well-known legal significance having well ascertained incidents, the Legislature did not think it necessary to define the term "transfer" separately in the Act. Supreme court in Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. , AIR 1981 SC 1274 , also interpreted the term "transfer" in general sense as defined in transfer of Property Act, when provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land holdings Act were considered where the expression "transfer" was not defined under the said Act. The Apex Court held that whenever the Legislature uses certain terms or expressions of well-known legal significance or connotation the Courts must interpret them as used or understood in the popular sense. The Legislature while enacting the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on land Holdings Act was alive to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act dealing with the transfer of immovable property. The terms transfer , sale , mortgage and lease have not been defined in the said Act. Therefore, these terms must have been used only in the sense in which they have been used in the Transfer of property Act. If the Legislature intended to use those terms in a different sense and with a different connotation, it would have defined those terms in the Act. But that has not been done. Even a contract of sale in view of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act does not by itself create any interest in or charge on the property. It is only a registration of such completed contract under the provisions of the Registration Act that title passes in the property. In Narandas karsondas v. S. M. Kamtam, AIR 1977 SC 774 , Supreme Court following the ratio in rambaran Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra, AIR 1967 SC 744 , held that the word "conveys" in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership and that agreement of sale or contract of sale in view of Section 54 of transfer of Property Act does not by itself create any interest in or charge on the property. It was further held that in India there is no distinction between legal and equitable property in the sense in which it was understood when equity was administered by the Court of Chancery in england and under the Indian law, there can be but one owner that is, the legal owner. In the instant case, we are concerned with the purport and meaning of the word "transfer" as contained in Section 5-A of the Act in the light of the objects and reasons in introducing the said provision, namely, to regularize an unregistered sale transaction, which would not mean to regularize incomplete transfer. There is no machinery or mechanism provided in the Act that even a person who has entered into an agreement of sale and in case is not completed but he has been put into possession of the property even on payment of entire sale consideration that can approach the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of a certificate under Section 5-A of the Act The mandal Revenue Officer in such a case cannot proceed to hold an enquiry as to whether agreement of sale has been complied with or not. On the failure on the part of vendor to complete the sale transaction, a person in whose favour there is an agreement of sale can seek specific performance of the agreement of sale so as to convey right, title or interest of the vendors. The machinery provided under the act is not the appropriate machinery for perfecting title merely on the basis of agreement of sale. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the learned Judge that there is a valid transfer of immovable property under agreements of sale cannot be sustained. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the agreement of sale relied upon by the society is not covered by the term transfer and cannot be treated as an "alienation" or "transfer" within the scope and meaning of Section 5-A of the Act and we answer the first question accordingly. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the agreement of sale relied upon by the society is not covered by the term transfer and cannot be treated as an "alienation" or "transfer" within the scope and meaning of Section 5-A of the Act and we answer the first question accordingly. " ( 7 ) IN the light of the views expressed by the Division Benches referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order made by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained since the 3rd respondent prayed for appropriate action by invoking Section 5-A of the Act and the said benefit under Section 5-A of the Act is not available in the case of an agreement of sale especially in the light of the view expressed in the decision referred in Konkana Ravinder Goud and others v. Bhavanarishi Co-operative house Building Society, Hyderabad case, (supra ). Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the light of the decisions referred to supra and accordingly the same- is hereby quashed. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, each party to bear their own costs.