ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief: “......to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring that the order passed in the Proceedings of the 4th respondent in F3/SP.Tribunal/Kondapak/03/2021 dated 04.02.2021, is without giving opportunity as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of Natural Justice and also against the settled principles of law, in respect of the land Adm. Ac. 2.20 guntas of Sy. No. 271/18/A situated at Vellikatta Village, Kondapaka Mandal and quash the same and pass such other order or orders....” 2. Heard Sri. A. Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of Special Tribunal, Siddipet in the Revision preferred by the petitioner. 4. According to petitioner, he entered into an agreement of sale with Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha on 15.12.2007 on land to an extent of Ac. 3.00 in Sy. No. 271 of Vellikatta Village and paid the earnest money, but she avoided execution of registered sale-deed. Further, Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha colluded with Shanamgari Srinivas Chary and sold the land to him under registered sale-deed. Petitioner alleges that the said registration is illegal. 5. Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha is the owner of Ac. 3.00 guntas of land in Sy. No. 271. According to petitioner, an agreement of sale was entered with Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha on 15.12.2007 and part sale consideration was paid. While so, Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha executed registered sale-deed in favour of Shanamgari Srinivas Chary on the above extent of land. Based on the registered sale-deed, Shanamgari Srinivas Chary applied to the Tahsildar to mutate his name in the revenue records. In response to the notice issued by the Tahsildar on 19.06.2015 on the said application, petitioner filed objection contending that having executed agreement of sale and received part sale consideration, Smt. Shanamagari Sujatha could not have executed registered sale-deed as it is a collusive registered sale-deed and therefore, it should not be acted upon and mutation should not be granted to Shanamgari Srinivas Chary. Rejecting the objection of petitioner, the Tahsildar ordered mutation of the name of Shanamgari Srinivas Chary in the revenue records on the above extent of land and assigning separate sub-division showing as Survey Number 271/18A to an extent of Ac. 2.20 guntas. Rejecting the objection of petitioner, the Tahsildar ordered mutation of the name of Shanamgari Srinivas Chary in the revenue records on the above extent of land and assigning separate sub-division showing as Survey Number 271/18A to an extent of Ac. 2.20 guntas. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, reiterating the same contentions. By order, dated 25.07.2018, the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the appeal affirming the view taken by the Tahsildar. Petitioner preferred Revision before the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). On constitution of Special Tribunal under Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (Act 9 of 2020), the said Revision was transferred to the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal by the order impugned herein, rejected the request affirming the view taken by the lower authorities. 6. All the authorities have consistently observed that petitioner has not challenged the validity of registered sale-deed and as long as registered sale-deed is subsisting, Shanamgari Srinivas Chary is entitled to seek mutation of his name in the revenue records. All the authorities have also referred to the suit in O.S. No. 151 of 2012 pending in the Court of Junior Civil Judge at Siddipet. 7. While learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that injunction suit was instituted and subsequently it was disposed of by recording compromise, a copy of the decree passed by the trial Court and the nature of compromise recorded by the trial Court are not placed before this Court. 8. Be that as it may, as noticed by the revenue authorities, the sale-deed executed and registered by Smt. Shanamgari Sujatha in favour of Shanamgari Srinivas Chary, stands as on today. When a person applies for mutation of his name in the revenue records supported by registered sale-deed, the Tahsildar cannot refuse to mutate the name of the vendee by merely considering the objection of petitioner on the ground that he was having an unregistered agreement of sale and when an agreement of sale is in operation, a registered sale-deed cannot be executed. Therefore, I do not see any error in the decision arrived at by the revenue authorities. 9. Therefore, I do not see any error in the decision arrived at by the revenue authorities. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that in accordance with the provisions in Rule 26(6) of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1971, possession is an important factor for consideration while considering the application for mutation and as petitioner was in possession, the Tahsildar could not have accepted the request of Shanamgari Srinivas Chary for mutating his name. However, from a reading of the order of Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Special Tribunal, it is seen that no plea was raised before these authorities on the issue of possession and invited a finding from them about the claim of possession of the petitioner. Even now, no material is placed on record to show that petitioner was in possession as on the date of passing of order by the Tahsildar. Therefore, the Court cannot appreciate the said stand taken for the first time and more so, unsupported by material, to show that petitioner was in possession. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the order of Special Tribunal is not sustainable on the sole ground that the Special Tribunal order was not preceded by notice and opportunity. In the normal circumstance, the said stand of the petitioner warrants acceptance and matter should go back to Special Tribunal. Opportunity of hearing is one of the basic requirements of a fair decision by a quasi-judicial Tribunal affecting right and/or interest in agricultural land. Non-compliance thereof may vitiate the decision. But, in a given facts of the case writ Court need not grant the relief only on this ground, if other circumstances, overwhelmingly go to show, on the face of it, the claim of petitioner is not valid and opportunity of hearing is an empty formality. In other words, it does not change the character of the decision per se. Further, Court need not grant relief on the ground of lack of opportunity of hearing, if it turns out to be an empty formality. In the facts of this case, having regard to the consistent stand of the revenue authorities, the mutation exercise undertaken by the Tahsildar mutating the name of Shanamgari Srinivas Chary, based on a registered sale-deed, cannot be faulted. In the facts of this case, having regard to the consistent stand of the revenue authorities, the mutation exercise undertaken by the Tahsildar mutating the name of Shanamgari Srinivas Chary, based on a registered sale-deed, cannot be faulted. Thus, in the facts of this case, as long as registered sale-deed is the basis for mutating the name of Shanamgari Srinivas Chary, the issue of opportunity of hearing is an empty formality. Petitioner cannot improve his case to invalidate the decision of the Tahsildar even if an opportunity is afforded to him by the Special Tribunal. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner instituted O.S. No. 146 of 2021 pending in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet praying to grant decree of Specific Performance of agreement of sale. Since a suit is already pending, it is open to the petitioner to prosecute the said suit. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of considering the issue of opportunity of hearing and validity of action of the Tahsildar in mutating name of Shanamgari Srinivas Chary based on registered sale-deed. Petitioner is entitled to take all pleas as available in law and establish his claim, in the pending suit. 12. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.