JUDGMENT : This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order, dated 12.06.2013, in Revision Petition No.D1/689/2011 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri V.V.Ramana Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners claim that their father and petitioner No.2 have purchased lands admeasuring Ac.0.37 guntas in Survey No.261, Ac.0.4 ½ guntas in Survey No.263 and Acs.3.37 guntas in Survey No.264 of Pudoor Village, Kodimial Mandal, Karimnagar District from the father of respondent No.5 under a simple sale deed, dated 04.05.1982. They have further pleaded that respondent No.5 has sold the remaining extent of Ac.0.16 ½ guntas in Survey No.261 and Ac.0.38 guntas in Survey No.264 to their father and petitioner No.2 in the year 1995. The petitioners also relied upon an agreement of sale, dated 20.07.1987 stated to have been executed by respondent No.5 in favour of their father and petitioner No.2. They have further pleaded that a part of the above-mentioned land was acquired by the South Central Railway and compensation was paid to them. Respondent No.5 has obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the above-mentioned lands from respondent No.4. The petitioners approached respondent No.3 with a representation. Responding to the said representation, respondent No.3 has called for records from respondent No.4 and directed rectification of the entries in 1-B Register, cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds granted to respondent No.5 and directed respondent No.4 to effect the changes in the 1-B Register by entering the names of the petitioners and validate the simple sale deed under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the 1971 Act’). Questioning the said order, respondent No.5 has filed a Revision Petition before respondent No.2. By the impugned order respondent No.2 has allowed the Revision Petition. At the outset, it needs to be observed that respondent No.2 has failed to assign any reasons whatsoever in allowing the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.5. The manner in which respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order for the following reasons: In the first place, the petitioners are claiming their right on the basis of unregistered and unstamped sale deeds. The manner in which respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order for the following reasons: In the first place, the petitioners are claiming their right on the basis of unregistered and unstamped sale deeds. Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), every deed of conveyance of non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property require registration. Section 49 of the Act deals with the effect of non-registration of the documents required to be registered. Under the said provision, no document required by Section 17 or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered shall affect any immovable property comprised therein or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered. However, under Section 5-A of the 1971 Act, a person who is an occupant of any land by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, is entitled to seek regularisation of the alienation. The Mandal Revenue Officer (presently the Tahsildar) is the competent authority for making such regularisation. In view of this incontrovertible position in law, respondent No.3 has committed a serious legal error in recognising the purported unregistered sale deeds and granting reliefs to the petitioners on the basis of such sales, directing deletion of the name of respondent No.5, replacing the names of the petitioners in the record of rights, cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to respondent No.5 and directing issuance of the said documents to the petitioners. Not stopping with that, respondent No.3 has also directed respondent No.4 to validate the plain sale deed held by the petitioners. This sweeping order passed by respondent No.3 cannot, therefore, by sustained in law. Further more, if any person is aggrieved by the entries in the record of rights, he can file an appeal under Section 5(5) of the 1971 Act within 90 days from the date of such entries being made. This sweeping order passed by respondent No.3 cannot, therefore, by sustained in law. Further more, if any person is aggrieved by the entries in the record of rights, he can file an appeal under Section 5(5) of the 1971 Act within 90 days from the date of such entries being made. Respondent No.3 has no power, as appellate authority to entertain a purported petition from the petitioners, to grant far reaching reliefs to the petitioners. Indeed, in the matter of grant of regularisation of plain sale deed, respondent No.3 is only an appellate authority and he cannot deal with such matters unless an appeal is brought before him against an order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 5-A of the 1971 Act. Thus, respondent No.3 has clutched at the jurisdiction which is absolutely not vested with him and passed orders far too in excess of his jurisdiction. Even though, respondent No.2 ought to have given all these reasons in support of his conclusion in allowing the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.5, having regard to the inherent defects with which the order of respondent No.3 suffers, I am not inclined to interfere with the conclusion drawn by respondent No.2 and the result of the Revision Petition. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from approaching respondent No.4 seeking validation of the purported plain sale deeds. If such application is filed, respondent No.4 shall give notices to the petitioners and respondent No.5 and take a decision without being influenced by the order in proceedings No.B/2010/2009, dated 11.08.2010, of respondent No.3. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.29200 of 2013 is dismissed as infructuous.