ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in passing order dated 07.01.2020 in the appeal vide No.B/20/2018, filed by respondent No.5 herein and the consequential notice issued by respondent No.4 in Rc.No.91/2020 dated 20.01.2020, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Section 5(B) r/w Rule 21 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass book Act, 1971 and Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and for consequential relief. 2. Heard Sri P.Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri K.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.1.23 guntas in Sy.No.206, an extent of Ac.1.37 guntas in Sy.No.218, an extent of Ac.2.28 guntas in Sy.No.219, an extent of Ac.3.09 guntas in Sy.No.205/A , an extent of Ac.4.05 guntas in Sy.No.203/A/2 , an extent of Ac.2.23 guntas in Sy.No.202/A, totaling to an extent of Ac.16.05 guntas, situated at Rangapoor Village, Kodakandla Mandal, Jangaon District (for short ‘subject land’), having purchased the same from respondent No.5 under Sadha Sale Deed dated 12.08.1999; that petitioner No.2 filed application under Section 5(A) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971’); that respondent No.4 after due enquiry regularized the same and issued Form No.13 A and 13 B; and that consequently pattadar pass books and title deeds vide Khata No.511 were also issued to petitioner No.2 and since then petitioner No.2 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land. 4. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.5 submitted a representation to respondent No.3 alleging that he had never sold the lands to petitioner No.2; that he had earlier lodged a complaint on 20.06.2000 before respondent No.3, which was registered as Rc.No.B/876/2000; and that the said complaint was disposed of on 03.08.2001 with a direction to both parties to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their dispute. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.5 had earlier filed O.S.No.550 of 2008 for perpetual injunction against his brother on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, and had also filed O.S.No.336 of 2008 before the same Court seeking rectification of revenue records by deleting the name of his father and brother and substituting his name. Both suits were decreed in favour of respondent No.5 vide Common Judgment and Decree dated 03.01.2014. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in entering the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, respondent No.5 filed Appeal No.B/20/2018 under Section 5(B) of the Act, 1971 read with Rule 21 of the Rules. It is further submitted that respondent No.3, despite being aware of the above disputes, entertained the appeal filed by respondent No.5 after more than two decades from the date of the Sada Sale Deed and more than five years from the date of its regularization. Upon receipt of notice in the appeal, petitioner No.2 appeared before respondent No.3 and filed a counter stating that out of the subject lands, she had sold an extent of Ac.2.00 to one S. Somakka under Document No.675/2017 and had gifted a certain extent of land to petitioner Nos.1 and 3 under a gift settlement deed No.397/2018 dated 05.03.2018. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 entertained the appeal though it was clearly barred by limitation and had also wrongly applied G.O.Ms.No.1328, Rev. (SSI) Department, dated 03.11.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.5 approached the RDO belatedly though the Sada Sale Deed was regularized long ago and mutation was also affected in the revenue records pursuant thereto. Without considering all these aspects, the 3rd respondent (RDO) entertained the appeal filed by respondent No.5 and allowed the same cancelling the entries of petitioners’ names in the revenue records and also directing Respondent No.6 therein (Tahasildar) to conduct Denovo enquiry, which is unsustainable. Therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. 8. Without considering all these aspects, the 3rd respondent (RDO) entertained the appeal filed by respondent No.5 and allowed the same cancelling the entries of petitioners’ names in the revenue records and also directing Respondent No.6 therein (Tahasildar) to conduct Denovo enquiry, which is unsustainable. Therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Erroju Brahmachary v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District , 2012 SCC OnLine AP 334 wherein learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer on the ground that the appeal under Section 5-B of the Act, 1971 had been entertained after a lapse of 10 years, contrary to the specific limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 5-B of the Act, 1971. 9. Respondent No.5 filed a counter stating that he never executed the purported sada sale deed dated 12.08.1999; that petitioner No.2 failed to produce the original sale deed before the authority and only a photocopy was produced, which does not contain details of the extents of various survey numbers. Despite this, the Tahasildar entertained the application and further mentioned the land covered under each survey number in Form 13-A, though the same is not mentioned in the purported photocopy of the sale deed. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that, as per Rule 22(2)(b) of the Rules, 1971, regularization of a sada sale deed is permissible only in respect of small or marginal farmers and not for large extents of land. In the present case, 13- B certificate has been issued for an extent of 16 acres, which is beyond the allowable limit. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submit that the respondent No.4 (Tahasildar) is aware of the various disputes pending before respondent No.5 and his brother and despite the same, the Tahasildar has entertained the application submitted by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act, 1971, without issuing any notice to respondent No.5 contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 5-A of the Act, 1971. Therefore, respondent No.3 has rightly allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.5 vide order dated 07.01.2020 and directed cancellation of entries of respondent Nos.1 to 5 therein in revenue records and directed the the Tahasildar to conduct Denovo Enquiry, in accordance with Section 5 of the Act, 1971. He further submitted that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.3, vide order dated 07.01.2020, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.5 despite the fact that the original sada sale deed had not been placed on record and the photocopies of the sada sale deed appeared to be tampered with. Further, Forms 13-A and 13-B issued by the Tahasildar is contrary to Rule 22(2)(b) of the Rules, as per only the applications filed by small or marginal farmers can be entertained for regularization. Whereas in the present case, the extent covered under the sada sale deed is Ac.16.00 guntas, which is beyond the prescribed limit. Therefore, respondent No.3 allowed the appeal cancelling the entries of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and directed respondent No.6 to conduct Denovo Enquiry. 13. It is also evident from the record that respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.550 of 2008 against his elder brother for perpetual injunction restraining him from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property, and O.S.No.336 of 2008 seeking rectification of entries in the revenue records by deleting the names of his brother and father and substituting his own name. Both suits were decreed in favour of respondent No.5 vide Common Judgment and Decree dated 03.01.2014 by the Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein (District Collector and Tahasildar) were directed to rectify the entries in the revenue records by deleting the name of the brother of respondent No.5 and restraining him from interfering with the peaceful possession of respondent No.5 over the suit schedule properties. 14. It is further evident that despite having knowledge of the pending litigation and disputes between respondent No.5 and his brother, respondent No.4 entertained the petitioners’ application, regularized the sada sale deed, and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioners without issuing notice to the affected parties. 14. It is further evident that despite having knowledge of the pending litigation and disputes between respondent No.5 and his brother, respondent No.4 entertained the petitioners’ application, regularized the sada sale deed, and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioners without issuing notice to the affected parties. It is further evident from the impugned order dated 07.01.2020 that one K. Damodar Reddy, who was shown as a witness to the sada bainamas dated 12.05.1996, 22.07.1998, and 12.08.1999, was examined and he deposed that he did not sign the said documents. 15. By the impugned order dated 07.01.2020, respondent No.3 had cancelled the entries of petitioners herein and two others and directed the Tahasildar to conduct a de novo enquiry. Further, the petitioners have the opportunity to appear before respondent No.4 (Tahasildar) in the denovo enquiry and raise all the contentions. 16. In the light of above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, respondent No.4 is directed to conduct denovo enquiry and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2024 and Rules made there under by duly issuing notices and affording opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Respondent No.4 shall complete the entire exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that all the contentions as well as grounds raised by both parties are left open to be agitated before respondent No.4. Further, the observations, if any, made in this writ petition are only for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition and the respondent No.4 shall not be influenced by the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.