Judgment In this writ petition, the petitioner herein has questioned the validity of the order of the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer of Pegadapalli Mandal of Karimnagar District, dated 04.06.1996, passed in Proceedings No.B/403/93, by which, he has confirmed the earlier order, dated 16.12.1991, passed in File No.ROR/489/488/490/89-91, in exercise of powers under Section 5-A of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and the order of the appellate authority, dated 23.12.2004, passed in Proceedings No.D1/4516/97. One Sri Mudugunti Anantha Reddy was owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.9.03 gts., covered by Sy.No.153/B of Aravelli village of Pegadapally Mandal in Karimnagar District. The petitioner claims that he has purchased the land admeasuring Ac.6.32 gts. in the aforesaid Survey number jointly along with respondents 4 and 5, vide registered sale deed, dated 27.11.1970, bearing document No.3555/70. He also claims to have purchased another piece of land admeasuring Ac.2.11 gts. in the same survey number along with respondent No.5 vide registered document, dated 29.12.1971, bearing document No.3104/71. It is his case that he was having 1/3rd share in the land admeasuring Ac.6.32 gts., and half share in the land admeasuring Ac.2.11 gts., and when there was a dispute between the joint owners, it is stated that the petitioner had filed suits in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976 on the file of District Munsiff, Jagtial, seeking partition and separate possession of his share. The said suits were decreed finally by final decree, dated 29th January 1987, and it is stated that in the execution proceedings in E.P.Nos.7 and 8 of 1987, he was also put in possession of his share in terms of the final decree, on 10.09.1987, and since then, he is in possession of the aforesaid land. At that stage, it appears, respondents 4 to 6, claiming purchase of the entire land admeasuring Ac.9.03 gts., covered by survey No.153/B by way of unregistered sale deed from the original owner Sri Anantha Reddy in the year 1968, filed an application under Section 5-A of the Act, seeking regularization of alienation. At that stage, it appears, respondents 4 to 6, claiming purchase of the entire land admeasuring Ac.9.03 gts., covered by survey No.153/B by way of unregistered sale deed from the original owner Sri Anantha Reddy in the year 1968, filed an application under Section 5-A of the Act, seeking regularization of alienation. At first instance, the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer passed the order, dated 16th December 1991, validating the sale, as against which, the petitioner herein preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent, who by his order, dated 11.07.1993, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent to conduct de-nova inquiry and pass appropriate orders. The 3rd respondent, again, by impugned order, dated 04.06.1996, passed in proceedings No.B/403/93, by recording a finding that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim, has confirmed the earlier order, dated 16th December 1991, passed in File No.ROR/489/488/490/ 89-91. As against the said order, the petitioner herein carried the matter by way of appeal as provided under Section 5(5) of the Act, before the 2nd respondent/Sub-Collector. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by order, dated 28.04.1997, passed in proceedings No.B/5904/95. The appellate authority has recorded a finding that the original owner, who appeared before the Mandal Revenue Officer, has denied the execution of registered sale deed and confirmed the simple sale deed executed on 15.06.1968 in favour of respondents 4 to 6. He has also stated in the order that except the certified copies of the registered documents along with the Court decrees, the petitioner has not filed any other documents, and such documents cannot be taken as valid instruments to consider his right over the appeal land. On dismissal of appeal by the 2nd respondent vide order, dated 28th April 1997, the petitioner carried the matter further in revision as provided under Section 9 of the Act, before the 1st respondent/Joint Collector. The 1st respondent also, on the ground that records disclosed that Sri M.Anantha Reddy has denied the selling of land in favour of petitioner and admitted the document executed in favour of respondents 4 to 6 in the year 1968, rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. The 1st respondent also, on the ground that records disclosed that Sri M.Anantha Reddy has denied the selling of land in favour of petitioner and admitted the document executed in favour of respondents 4 to 6 in the year 1968, rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondents 4 and 5 died and respondents 7 to 11 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased 4th respondent and respondents 12 and 13 as legal representatives of the 5th respondent. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that as much as the petitioner has purchased the land along with respondents 4 to 5 by registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3555/70 and 3104/71, dated 27.11.1970 and 29.12.1971 respectively, and as he was also put in possession of his share pursuant to the final decree passed by the learned District Munsiff, Jagtial, the 3rd respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 5-A of the Act, to regularize the alienation claimed by respondents 4 to 6 in the year 1968. It is stated that the said unregistered document of 1968 is a false and concocted document, brought into existence by respondents 4 to 6 in collusion with the original owner Sri M.Anantha Reddy. It is also his case that inspite of filing documentary evidence i.e. certified copies of registered sale deeds and final decrees passed in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976, the appellate and revisional authorities, without considering the matter in proper perspective, refused to accept the said documents merely basing on the statement made by the original owner, who has colluded with respondents 4 to 6. The 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the vendor of the land Sri M.Anantha Reddy has deposed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pegadapalli, on 18.02.1991, to the effect that he never executed any registered document. The 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the vendor of the land Sri M.Anantha Reddy has deposed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pegadapalli, on 18.02.1991, to the effect that he never executed any registered document. It is also averred that the petitioner did not choose to file a case against the vendor in a Civil Court, and as much as the original owner has executed simple sale deed, dated 15.06.1968 in favour of respondents 4 to 6, as deposed by him before the Mandal Revenue Officer to that effect, the claim of purchase made by the petitioner is not correct, and that there is no procedural lapse at any point of time. In the counter, it is further stated that the copies of registered documents and the Court decrees cannot be taken as valid instruments to consider the petitioner’s right over the land. Pleading that there is no truth in the contention of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. On behalf of respondents 6 to 13, counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.6. In the counter, it is stated that respondents 4 to 6 have purchased the land admeasuring Ac.9.03 gts. from Sri M.Anantha Reddy vide unregistered sale deed, dated 15.06.1968, and they were delivered possession of the land and their names were also recorded in the revenue records, as actual cultivators and possessors, from the year 1976-77. Stating that as much as the said document executed in their favour is unregistered one, they made an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the Act, and the said authority, after recording the evidence of the original owner Sri M.Anantha Reddy, has ordered for regularization of alienation made in favour of respondents 4 to 6 on 15.06.1968. It is stated that since then, the names of respondents are recorded as owners and possessors. It is stated that since then, the names of respondents are recorded as owners and possessors. While referring to the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities, it is stated that if the petitioner claims purchase of aforesaid lands by registered sale deeds, it is for him to file a suit for declaration of title in a Civil Court, as provided under Section 8 of the Act, but there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the authorities so as to interfere with the impugned orders, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the counter, while referring to the proceedings in the suits filed by the petitioner in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976, it is stated that as the said decrees were passed in their absence, they are not relevant for the purpose of inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. While pleading that there is concurrent finding recorded by the authorities in their favour, respondents 6 to 13 have prayed for dismissal of writ petition. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri V.Ravinder Rao and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and also Sri P.V.Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 13. It is contended by Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, that the petitioner has already purchased the land by two registered sale deeds, dated 27.11.1970 and 29.12.1971 along with respondents 4 and 5, and in view of the final decrees passed by the civil Court in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976, as the petitioner was already put in possession of the share allotted to him as per the final decree proceedings, it is not open for the unofficial respondents to claim any regularization on the ground that there was unregistered sale deed. It is submitted that in view of the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner by the original owner, the unregistered sale deed will not have any effect on the land in question. It is submitted that inspite of filing documentary evidence of registered sale deeds and the final decree proceedings passed by the civil Court with regard to the very same land, the authorities below have simply ignored the same without assigning valid reasons and ordered regularization based on the evidence of original owner. It is submitted that inspite of filing documentary evidence of registered sale deeds and the final decree proceedings passed by the civil Court with regard to the very same land, the authorities below have simply ignored the same without assigning valid reasons and ordered regularization based on the evidence of original owner. It is submitted that as much as the original owner has made such statement in collusion with respondents 4 to 6, the authorities below ought not to have given any credence to such deposition, which runs contrary to the registered documents executed in his favour by the original owner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that when the petitioner is claiming title to a portion of the land by virtue of registered sale deeds and the final decrees passed by the trial Court, it is not open for the authority constituted under Section 5-A of the Act, to decide such questions, and therefore, the findings recorded are beyond the scope of inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and also learned counsel Sri P.V.Narayana Rao, appearing for respondents, that when the original owner himself has denied the execution of any registered sale deeds, petitioner cannot make any claim based on such documents. It is submitted that after purchase of land from the original owner Sri. M.Anantha Reddy, the land was mutated in their names, and their names are also recorded in all the revenue records. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show the possession of petitioner, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the authorities. It is submitted that the very provision under Section 5-A of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, is intended to regularize such alienations and in the absence of any evidence in support of the claim of the petitioner, there is no illegality committed by the authorities in ordering regularization of alienation in favour of respondents 4 to 6. It is submitted that when the execution of registered sale deeds is denied, it is for the petitioner to prove such alienation in terms of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is submitted that when the execution of registered sale deeds is denied, it is for the petitioner to prove such alienation in terms of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, is enacted with a view to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the rights in land and pattadar pass books in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, when it was noticed that in a number of cases, the agricultural lands are sold by unregistered documents and based on such documents the purchasers came into possession, to regularize such alienations or transfers, Section 5-A was inserted by virtue of Amendment Act 1 of 1989. Under Section 5-A(1) of the Act, where a person is an occupant of agricultural land by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alienee or the transferee can apply in the prescribed form to the Mandal Revenue Officer, for a certificate to declare that such alienation or transfer is valid. Under Section 5-A(2) of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer is empowered to inquire on such claim of transfer and if he is satisfied that there is transfer of such land by an unregistered document, he may direct the alienee or transferee to deposit in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, an amount equal to the registration fee and stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, as fixed by the registering officer on a reference made by him. On deposit of such amounts as demanded under Section 5-A(2) of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer is empowered to 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, notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, be evidence of such alienation or transfer, as against the alienor or transferor or any other person claiming interest under him. Under Section 5-A(5) of the Act, the recording authority, shall, on production of certificate issued under sub-section (2), make an entry in the pass book to the effect that the person, whose name has been recorded as an occupant, is the owner of property. Under Section 5-A(5) of the Act, the recording authority, shall, on production of certificate issued under sub-section (2), make an entry in the pass book to the effect that the person, whose name has been recorded as an occupant, is the owner of property. A plain reading of the provisions under Section 5-A of the Act makes it clear that the Mandal Revenue Officer is given power to issue a certificate to the alienee or transferee, declaring the alienation or transfer as valid, only in cases where there are no disputes with regard to the title over the property. When the transfer is disputed on the basis of collusion, fraud, etc., the Mandal Revenue Officer, who is empowered to regularize the alienation, is not empowered to adjudicate the complicate questions with regard to title, possession etc. The said provisions are intended to apply only to the cases where the transferee is in possession of land by virtue of unregistered sale deed and such transfer is not in dispute. Once there is a claim to the land which is subject matter of the application before the Mandal Revenue Officer by any third party by way of a registered sale deed, the Mandal Revenue Officer is not empowered to embark on inquiry so as to decide the title and other complicated questions, which arise for consideration. In this case, it is to be noticed that there are registered sale deeds, dated 27.11.1970 and 29.12.1971, by which, the petitioner is claiming 1/3rd share in the transfer effected by registered sale deed, dated 27.11.1970 in the land admeasuring Ac.6.32 gts., and half share in the transfer effected by registered sale deed, dated 29.12.1971, in the land admeasuring Ac.2.11 gts. It is also to be noticed that when there was a dispute with regard to apportionment, the petitioner has approached the Civil Court by filing suits in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976, for partition, against respondent Nos.4 to 6. The said suits were decreed and final decrees were passed in terms of the Commissioner’s report. It is also his case that he got executed such final decrees, in E.P.Nos.7 and 8 of 1987, and he was also put in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.3.16 gts. by the Court Bailiff. The said suits were decreed and final decrees were passed in terms of the Commissioner’s report. It is also his case that he got executed such final decrees, in E.P.Nos.7 and 8 of 1987, and he was also put in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.3.16 gts. by the Court Bailiff. It is relevant to note at this stage that though it is the case of respondents 4 and 5 that the final decrees were not passed in their presence, but a copy of the written statement filed in O.S.No.125 of 1976 is placed on record. In the said written statement filed before the learned District Munsiff, Jagtial, the purchase of land from the original owner by way of registered sale deeds by the petitioner, was not disputed. In fact, the unofficial respondents herein have claimed the entire land on the ground that subsequent to joint purchase from the original owner, the petitioner has sold his share of land to them. When such is the stand by the unofficial respondents before the Civil Court, it is not known as to how could the original owner has deposed that he did not execute the registered sale deed. The authorities below ought not to have given any credence to the deposition of the original owner in utter disregard to the valid registered sale deeds executed by the original owner vide document Nos.3555/70, dated 27.11.1970 and 3104/71, dated 29.12.1971. When the land is already sold by way of registered documents, they are to be given effect to, as regards the property comprised in such documents, against an unregistered document relating to the very same property. Here, it is relevant to refer to Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908, which reads as under: “50. Certain registered documents relating to land to take effect against unregistered documents : 1. Every document of the kinds mentioned in Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Section 17, sub-section (1), and Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 18, shall, if duly registered, take affect as regards the property comprised therein, against every unregistered document relating to the same property, and not being a decree or order, whether such unregistered document be of the same nature as the registered document or not. 2. 2. Nothing in sub-section (1) applies to leases exempted under the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 17 or to any document mentioned in sub-section (2) of the same section or to any registered document which had no priority under the law in force at the commencement of this Act. Explanation:- In cases where Act No.XVI of 1864 or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, was in force in the place and at the time in and at which such unregistered document was executed, “unregistered” means not registered according to such Act, and, where the document is executed after the first day of July, 1871, not registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act.” As much as the documents, which are executed for alienation of land are covered by provisions under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and in view of the provision under Section 50 of the said Act, the registered documents bearing No.3555/70, dated 27.11.1970 and 3104/71, dated 29.12.1971, by which, there is transfer of part of the land in favour of the petitioner, take effect over the unregistered sale deed, dated 15.06.1968, relied on by the unofficial respondents. The plea of the unofficial respondents that they have purchased the property from original owner Sri M.Anantha Reddy and there is no sale in favour of the petitioner, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. As evident from the written statement in O.S.No.125 of 1976 filed by the petitioner, the unofficial respondents herein have never disputed the purchase of land by the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 jointly vide documents, dated 27.11.1970 and 29.12.1971. On the other hand, they have claimed the entire land on the ground that the petitioner has subsequently sold his portion of land also to them and they were inducted into possession of the said land. Inspite of such a stand, the suits were decreed, and inspite of decrees passed by the trial Court in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976, it is not open for respondents 4 to 6 to plead that such final decree proceedings are not binding on them. Inspite of such a stand, the suits were decreed, and inspite of decrees passed by the trial Court in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976, it is not open for respondents 4 to 6 to plead that such final decree proceedings are not binding on them. While it is true that after first round of litigation, the petitioner has not placed on record the registered sale deeds and final decree proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer, but it is clear from the order of the appellate authority that such documents were placed on record before the 2nd respondent/Sub-Collector. Unfortunately, the 2nd respondent has given more credence to the deposition of the original vendor, disregarding the certified copies of the registered documents and the final decree proceedings in the suit in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976. The 2nd respondent-appellate authority has recorded totally an erroneous finding stating that the certified copies of registered documents and the Court decrees filed by the petitioner cannot be taken as valid instruments to consider the claim of the petitioner. Even the revisional authority has also rejected the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act, by recording a finding that the original pattadar has denied the sale of land in favour of petitioner. The said authority also grossly erred in recording such a finding in ignorance of the valid registered sale deeds and final decree proceedings in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976. When it is the case of the petitioner that such unregistered document, dated 15.06.1968, is a concocted document by respondents 4 to 6, brought into existence in collusion with the original owner Sri M.Anantha Reddy, the respondent-authorities ought not to have given any weightage to the oral evidence of Sri M.Anantha Reddy, who was the original owner, by ignoring the valid documents, namely, the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3555/70, dated 27.11.1970 and 3104/71, dated 29.12.1971 and the final decree proceedings in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976. In this case, as much as the petitioner has put up an independent claim by virtue of the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3555/70 and 3104/71, the respondent authorities ought not to have considered the claim of respondents 4 to 6 for regularization of alienation. In this case, as much as the petitioner has put up an independent claim by virtue of the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3555/70 and 3104/71, the respondent authorities ought not to have considered the claim of respondents 4 to 6 for regularization of alienation. In view of the claim of the petitioner, as there was a dispute with regard to title itself, the Mandal Revenue Officer is not empowered under Section 5-A of the Act, to record any finding on such complicated questions, with regard to title and possession of the land in question. As referred above, the Mandal Revenue Officer, in exercise of powers under Section 5-A of the Act, is not empowered at all to adjudicate such kind of disputes and such questions are to be decided only by civil Courts, but not by the authorities under the Act. Though the learned counsel Sri P.V.Narayana Rao has placed reliance on Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the same has no relevance to the facts of the present case. He has also relied on the judgment in the case of P.Sambasiva Rao Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy 2009 (4) ALD 663 . In the aforesaid judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court, while examining the scope of appeal and revision against the orders passed under Section 5-A of the Act, has held that the authorities have to only verify whether the prescribed procedure has been followed, and whether there exists any legal or factual infirmity in the procedure. However, it is to be noted that in the same judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that it is impermissible to pronounce upon the title of the parties in such proceedings and the disputes touching upon title can be decided only by Civil Courts. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment would not render any assistance in support of his case. Although it is further pleaded that it is for the petitioner to establish his title in the Civil Court by way of declaratory suit under Section 8(2) of the Act, in this case, it is to be noticed that the petitioner is claiming title by virtue of registered documents and the final decree proceedings, by which, he was put in possession pursuant to final decree passed in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976. If the unofficial respondents feel that they got title, it is for them to claim relief under Section 8(2) of the Act, but as much as in this case, the main question that has fallen for consideration is the scope of inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, it is not necessary to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there is a provision under Section 8(2) of the Act, to seek declaration of title. As much as this Court is of the view that the respondent-authorities have ignored the valid registered sale deeds and the final decree proceedings of the competent Civil Court while passing the impugned orders, the orders passed by them are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order, dated 04.06.1996, passed in Proceedings No.B/403/93 by the 3rd respondent, and the order, dated 28.04.1997, passed in Proceedings No.B/5904/95, by the 2nd respondent, and the further order passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.D1/4516/97, dated 23.12.2004, are hereby quashed, with a further direction to the respondents to record the name of the petitioner as owner and possessor to the extent of land, of which, he was put in possession pursuant to final decrees in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1976 on the file of District Munsiff, Jagtial. The writ petition is allowed, subject to the above directions. No costs.