ORDER : K.SARATH, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal/Respondent No.2 in Case No.F2/1146/2021, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Proceedings No.G/1007/2007, dated 10.08.2007 in issuing 13-B Certificate in respect of the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.21 Guntas in Sy.Nos.500, 514 and 515, situated at Mangamma Gudem Village, Erstwhile Mothkur Mandal, now, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri- Bhongir District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’) was dismissed confirming the order passed by the respondent No.4. 2. Heard Sri G.Vasanth Rayudu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Seetharam Reddy Kancharla, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 7 and perused the record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.8.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.452, 457, 458, 459, 460, 492, 500, 514, 515, 521 and 541, situated at Mangamma Gudem Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District and she was also issued with patta pass book and title deed in respect of the said land vide Patta No.265, Title Deed No.148786 and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land having acquired from her husband, who succeeded through partition from his ancestors. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that out of the total extent of land, she gave an extent of Ac.2.21 guntas to the brother of her husband i.e. respondent No.5 on lease for the maintenance of her mother-in-law. The respondent No.5, without any manner of right, approached the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, by falsely representing that the petitioner had executed a Sada Bainama (Sada Sale Deed) in his favour and sought to regularize and implement the same under Section 5-A of Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for brevity ‘ROR Act 1971’) for issuance of 13-B Certificate. On coming to know the same, the petitioner filed her objections before the respondent No.4 and gave her statement on 17.04.2007 stating that she never sold the property to the respondent No.5 through Sada sale deed. But, without considering her statement, the respondent No.4 issued proceedings No.G/1007/2007 on 10.08.2007 in favour of the respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed ROR appeal before the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, where it was numbered as ROR Appeal No.2999/2007. But, without considering her statement, the respondent No.4 issued proceedings No.G/1007/2007 on 10.08.2007 in favour of the respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed ROR appeal before the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, where it was numbered as ROR Appeal No.2999/2007. Consequent on constitution of the Special Tribunals as per ROR Act, 2020, the same was transmitted to the respondent No.2/Special Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the petitioner obtained necessary documents under Right to Information Act and on perusal of the same, it was found that the document dated 31.05.1999 submitted by the respondent No.5 is a forged one, which bears signature of the petitioner as well as her daughter Goli Madhavi Latha. The signatures on the said document are forged and she has no necessity to sell the same through Sada sale deed. In regularization of Sada sale deed proceedings under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971 once the objection was raised regarding the genuineness of Sada sale deed. the respondent No.2 ought to have directed the respondent No.5 to obtain decree from the competent Civil Court, but without considering the said submissions made by the petitioner, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.6, in whose favour the respondent No.5 executed sale deed, is trying to alienate the said land along with other lands in Survey No.500, thereby creating further litigations and without any authority or right, as such the proceedings under 13-B of ROR Act, 1971 are unsustainable. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.6 had again transferred the land to an extent of Ac.1.17 guntas in favour of the respondent No.7 during the pendency of the appeal before the Respondent No.3 and again the respondent No.7 is trying to further alienate the property to third parties and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied on the following Judgments: 1. V.Krishnaiah and others Vs. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District and others , 2007 (3) ALD 391 2. Pureli Chandraiah Vs. Joint Collector, Karimnagar District and others , 2011 (4) ALD 197 3. Susheela Bai Vs. Joint Collector, Adilabad District , 2014 (4) ALD 631 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied on the following Judgments: 1. V.Krishnaiah and others Vs. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District and others , 2007 (3) ALD 391 2. Pureli Chandraiah Vs. Joint Collector, Karimnagar District and others , 2011 (4) ALD 197 3. Susheela Bai Vs. Joint Collector, Adilabad District , 2014 (4) ALD 631 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the respondent No.2 has rightly dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner basing on the material available on record and the aggrieved party has to approach competent Civil Court for declaration of title and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents basing on the counter submits that the petitioner has sold the subject property to the respondent No.5 through unregistered sale deed dated 31.05.1999 and the same has been regularized by the respondent No.4 vide file No.G/1007/2007 dated 10.08.2007 by following the procedure. The Special Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner directing the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and to find out if there is any forged document created by the respondent No.5, but the petitioner approached this Court. 11. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents further submits that the respondent No.4/Tahsildar regularized the sada sale deed by taking into account of the possession of the respondent No.5 and also basing on the Adangal Pahanies for the different survey numbers. 12. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents further submits that in the instant case the respondent No.4/Tahsildar has followed the procedure for regularization of the subject property in favour of the respondent No.5 and the respondent No.2 has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and there is no violation of law in passing the impugned orders by the respondent No.4 and 2 respectively. 13. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents further submits that the respondent No.5 sold the schedule property to the respondent No.6 through registered document No.2843 of 2007, who in turn sold the property to the respondent No.7 through registered document No.1511 of 2012 and the respondent No.4 also issued with E-Pattadar Pass Book to the respondent No.7 vide Patta No.60205 and T-30010061583 and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 14 . 14 . The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents in support of his contentions relied on the following Judgments: 1. P.Sambasiva Rao Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others , 2009 (4) ALD 663 2. Pochi Reddy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Viakarabad, R.R. District and others , 2004 (4) ALD 77 15. After hearing both sides and on perusing the documents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner and the respondent No.5 are close relatives and the petitioner is questioning the issuance of 13-B Certificate in favour of the respondent No.5 by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar for the subject property by regularizing the Sada Sale Deed dated 31.05.1999, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner and her daughter in favour of the respondent No.5. 16. Basing on the application made by the respondent No.5 for regularization of the subject property, the respondent No.4/Tahsildar issued notice to the petitioner and in response to the same, the petitioner submitted her objections and also gave her statement stating that she has not sold the subject property to the respondent No.5 by virtue of alleged Sada sale deed. In spite of the objections raised by the petitioner, the respondent No.4/Tahsildar without taking into account of the same, regularized the Sada sale deed in favour of the respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the Respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer(Sub-Collector, Bhongir under Section 5(B) of the ROR Act, 1971.` Pending the said proceedings, the appeal was transmitted to the respondent No.2/Special Tribunal in view of ROR Act, 2020 came into force. The respondent No.2 dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioner by giving a finding that the respondent No.4/Tahsildar has issued Form- 11 Notices and sanctioned 13-B Certificate in favour of the respondent No.5 by collecting stamp duty and only the Civil Court can decide the genuineness of the Sada sale deed. 17. Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971, reads as under 5A. [ Regularisation of certain alienations or other transfers of lands. 17. Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971, reads as under 5A. [ Regularisation of certain alienations or other transfers of lands. [Inserted by Andhra Pradesh Act 1 of 1989, w.e.f. 4-3-1989.] (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, [where a person is an occupant] by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alienee or the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid. (2) On receipt of such application, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 as fixed by the registering officer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the basis of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall not require the alienee or the transferee to deposit the amount under this sub-section unless he is satisfied that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. 18. Rule-22 (3) and (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 deals with 'regularization of certain alienations or transfers of land, and the same is extracted as under: (3) On receipt of the application under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue notice to the alienor or transferor in Form No. XI specifying therein the date on which and the time at which he proposes to enquire into the application. He shall also cause to issue a notice in Form No. XII to all other persons believed to be interested in the land specifying therein, date, time and place at which he proposes to enquire into the application. Only unregistered documents shall be considered under Section 5-A of the Act. (4) On the day so appointed or any other day to which enquiry may be adjourned by him, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall after hearing the parties and on examining their documents and witnesses, if any, and after taking such further evidence as he may consider necessary to satisfy himself that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of any of the provisions of the Acts referred to in Rule 9(i)(a)(iv) complete the enquiry. xxxx xxxx 19. The main contention of the petitioner is that, once she disputed before the recording authority/respondent No.4 about the execution of the alleged Sada sale deed in favour of the respondent No.5, the respondent No.4 has no power to regularize the Sada sale deed under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971 and he has to advise the respondent No.5 to approach the competent Civil Court to prove the genuineness of the Sada sale deed. The said action of the respondent No.4 and 2 is arbitrary, illegal and also contrary to the Orders of this Court. 20 . The relevant portions of the Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are extracted as under: (i) V.Krishnaiah and others (supra 1). “15. The regularization of an alienation under Section 5-A of the Act, is akin to the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. From the point of view of procedure, various hurdles, which, a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance has to face, have been removed under Section 5- A. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act are saved. However, on a close examination of the relevant provisions, it becomes evident that the relief under Section 5- A can be granted only when there is no dispute as to the execution of the document concerned. xxxxx xxxx” (ii) Pureli Chandraiah (supra 2) “12. However, on a close examination of the relevant provisions, it becomes evident that the relief under Section 5- A can be granted only when there is no dispute as to the execution of the document concerned. xxxxx xxxx” (ii) Pureli Chandraiah (supra 2) “12. 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. Xxxx xxxx 15. In this case, as much as the petitioner has put up anindependent 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. xxxxxxxx” 21. 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. xxxxxxxx” 21. The findings given in the above orders clearly shows that once there is a dispute with regard to the execution of the sale deed, the recording authority has no power under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971 to regularize sada sale deed and it has to be decided by the competent Civil Court by conducting trial and the findings of the above orders squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, without doing the same and in spite of objections raised by the petitioner before the recording authority and without considering the statement given by the petitioner, the respondent No.4/Tahsildar regularized the Sada sale deed under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971 and also issued 13-B and C certificates and in view of the same, the same are liable to be set aside. 22. The finding of the respondent No.2/Special Tribunal that the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, has issued Form-11 Notices and issued 13-B and 13-C certificates and no need to interfere with the impunged order is not acceptable as the issuance of notices is not an empty formality. In the instant case, after receiving the notices the petitioner appeared before the recording authority and disputed about the execution of the alleged Sada sale deed and the recording authority/respondent No.4 has no power to regularize the Sada sale deed and he has to direct the respondent No.5 to approach the Civil Court. In view of the same, the regularization of the Sada sale deed in favour of the respondent No.5 by the respondent No.4 is not valid and the finding of the respondent No.2/Special Tribunal that the respondent No.4 followed the procedure by issuing Form-11 Notices and also issuance of 13-B and C certificates is not valid for dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 23. 23. The contention of the unofficial respondents is that the appellate authority has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No.4 has followed the procedure by issuing Form-11 Notice and also issuance of 13-B and C certificates by the official respondents is not acceptable. 24. The contention of the unofficial respondents is that the respondent No.5 has sold the subject property to the respondent No.6 and the respondent No.6 also sold the subject property to the respondent No.7 and the Revenue authority also mutated the records in favour of the respondent No.7. All these transactions were consequential to the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar and during the pendency of the appeal before the Sub-Collector, Bhongir. 25. The basis for consequential sale deeds is regularization of the subject property by the Respondent No.4/Tahsildar, which is impunged in this instant writ petition. In view of the same, the consequential sale deeds have no bearing in disposing of the instant writ petition. In the instant case, it clearly shows that the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, without following the procedure, regularized the disputed Sada sale deed under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971 and issued consequential proceedings and in view of the same the said proceedings are liable to be set aside. This order does not preclude the respondent No.5 to 7 to approach the civil Court for declaration of their title. After disposal of the said suit, they can approach the revenue authorities for mutation of the records as per law. 26 . The Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents are not apply to the facts of the instant case. 27. In view of the above findings, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned Proceedings No.G/1007/2007 dated 10.08.2007 issued by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar and also consequential order passed by the respondent No.2/Special Tribunal in appeal No. F2/1146/2021 dated 01.02.2021 are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the subject property. The respondent No.5 to 7 are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for agitating their rights in respect of the subject property in appropriate proceedings. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.