ORDER : K.SARATH, J. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4; Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and perused the entire material on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition questioning the order dated 28.08.2020 in proceedings No.B/18/2020 passed by the respondent No.3, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner vide Appeal No.B/77/2020, thereby confirming the orders passed by respondent No.4 in proceedings No.B/1155/2019 (dated nil) under Section 5-A of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, ‘ROR Act’), regularizing the unregistered agreement of sale dated 28.02.2014 alleged to have been executed in favour of the respondent No.5 by the petitioner and issuing Pattadar Pass Books dated 19.12.2019 in favour of the respondent No.5 in respect of the land in Sy.No.303 admeasuring Ac.0-19 guntas and Sy.No.304/B/2/2 admeasuring Ac.2-09 guntas, total extent of Ac.2-28 guntas, situated at Madipalli Village, Thorrur Mandal, Mahabubabad District. The proceedings also mutated the name of the respondent No.5 in respect of the said land on the basis of regularization of the alleged agreement of sale, and the same are illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 has issued regularization proceedings in No.B/1155/2019 (dated nil) under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, basing on the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2014 alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.5. In fact, as per Section 5-A of the ROR Act, the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2014 cannot be regularized. It is settled law that an agreement of sale cannot be regularized under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. Moreover, the respondent No.5 also filed a suit in O.S.No.6 of 2021 on the file of the District Judge at Mahabubabad for specific performance of the agreement of sale and for consequential reliefs against the petitioner and others in respect of the suit schedule property. Once the respondent No.5 filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, the question of regularizing the agreement of sale does not arise. Once the respondent No.5 filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, the question of regularizing the agreement of sale does not arise. In view of the same, learned counsel prayed this Court to set aside the impugned orders dated 28.08.2020 in proceedings No.B/18/2020 passed by the respondent No.3 and also the orders in proceedings No.B/1155/2019 (dated nil) passed by the respondent No.4 filed under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that the respondent No.5 is in peaceful possession of the land to an extent of Ac.0.19 guntas in Sy.No.303 and Ac.2.09 guntas in Sy.No.304/B/2/2 at Madipalli village and the Writ Petition is not maintainable as it involves disputed questions of fact and is filed with a malafide intention to disturb such possession. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that basing on the application of the respondent No.5 accompanied by documents, the respondent No.4 conducted due enquiry into actual physical possession, examined the father of the petitioner, considered detailed field reports of the Village Revenue Officer, and thereafter, following the provisions of law, mutated the name of the respondent No.5 and issued Pattadar Pass Books for the above extents, which are duly reflected in the revenue records. Further, enquiry report of the respondent No.4 records that the father of the petitioner as pattadar, expressly gave no objection to mutation and issuance of Pattadar Pass Books in favour of the respondent No.5 for the said extents, and this consent also finds place in a Gram Panchayat resolution. Thus, the proceedings of the respondent No.4 are strictly in accordance with law. The Appeal No.B/77/2020 was finally heard on 27.08.2020 in the presence of both parties, and considering the written arguments of both sides, the respondent No.3 had rightly dismissed the appeal on merits vide order dated 28.08.2020 in proceedings No.B/18/2020 on the strength of the Village Revenue Officer’s detailed report. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and requested this Court to dismiss the same. 6. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and requested this Court to dismiss the same. 6. After hearing both sides and on a perusal of entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner questions the proceedings No.B/1155/2019 (dated nil) for regularization of the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2014 in favour of the respondent No.5 for the suit schedule property. The contention of the petitioner is that merely basing on the agreement of sale, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar has no power to regularize the same under Section 5(A) of ROR Act and issue pattadar passbooks and also the consequential orders passed by the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer in ROR Appeal No.B/77/2020 are liable to be set aside. There is no dispute that the respondent authorities regularized the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2014 under Section 5-A of the ROR Act and the Sada Sale Deed can be regularized but not the agreement of sale itself. 7. In a similar issue, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held in K.Seetharama Reddy Vs Hassan Ali Khan, 2002 SCC OnLine AP 1036 , at paragraph No.23, as under: “23. We have gone through Section 5-A of the said Act carefully and we are of the considered view that an agreement of sale simplicitor is not enough for regularisation of the document under Section 5-A of the said Act.” 8. Further, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Konkana Ravinder Goud Vs Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad , 2003 SCC OnLine AP 852 at paragraph No.67, reads as under: “67. 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 regularise an unregistered sale transaction, which would not mean to regularise incomplete transfers. 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 sale 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 to sell. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the learned Judge that there is a valid transfer of immoveable 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.” 9. The findings in the aforementioned judgments squarely apply to the instant case. In view of the same, the respondent No.4 has no power to regularize the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2014. Moreover, the respondent No.5 has already filed O.S.No.6 of 2021 before the District Judge, at Mahabubabad, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale and consequential reliefs in respect of the suit schedule property against the petitioner and others. Once the respondent No.5 filed the suit for specific performance and admits the agreement of sale between the petitioner and the respondent No.5, the question of regularization of the document under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, does not arise. In view of the same, the proceedings No.B/1155/2019 (dated nil) issued by the respondent No.4 and the consequential order dated 28.08.2020 in proceedings No.B/18/2020 passed by respondent No.3 are liable to be set- aside. However, the respondent No.5 may approach the revenue authorities for mutation of revenue records as per the ROR Act after disposal of the suit filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale. 10. However, the respondent No.5 may approach the revenue authorities for mutation of revenue records as per the ROR Act after disposal of the suit filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale. 10. In view of the above findings, this Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside order dated 28.08.2020 in proceedings No.B/18/2020 passed by the respondent No.3 confirming the order in proceedings No.B/1155/2019 (dated nil) passed by respondent No.4 under Section 5-A of the ROR Act as well as the E-Pattadar Passbook dated 19.12.2019 issued in favour of the respondent No.5. However, this order does not preclude the respondent No.5 from approaching the competent revenue authorities for mutation of revenue records if the suit filed by her is decreed in her favour. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.