ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the Order dated 06.07.2020 in file No.F2/4502/2017 of respondent No.2, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as illegal, unlawful and contrary to the provisions of Telangana State Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and for consequential relief. 2. Heard Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri K.Lakshmi Manoher, learned Counsel for respondent No.5. 3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ petition are that petitioner’s mother late Nalla Suvarnamma, was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.3 – 25 gts in Sy.No.265/U, Ac.1 – 03 gts in Sy.No.266/EE, Ac.0 – 23 gts in Sy.No.267/U, Acs.0 – 25 gts in Sy.No.268/U and Ac.0 – 07 gts in Sy.No.269/U, totally admeasuring Acs.6 – 03 gts, situated at Yennaram village, Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject lands); that Suvarnamma got two sons i.e., petitioner herein and one N.Madhusudhana Reddy, who are pursuing their studies in Hyderabad and due to old age, petitioner’s mother and father gave the subject lands on lease cum crop share basis to respondent No.5 in the year 2004-05. Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother and father shifted to Hyderabad and were staying with the petitioner; that the names of petitioner’s mother and father were recorded in pahanies for the year 2004-05, however, respondent No.5 in collusion with V.R.O, got created false and fabricated document in the style of ‘BHUVIKRAYA DASTAVEJU’ (Sale deed), dated 21.08.1999, as if the subject lands were sold to respondent No.5 by petitioner’s mother for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/-. 4. 4. It is further averred that respondent No.5 made an application to M.R.O for validation of the document in the year 2006 and the said document was kept pending till 2011 and on coming to know about the submission of application, petitioner’s mother filed an objection stating that she did not sell the subject lands to respondent No.5 nor received any consideration and that the said document was fabricated and also disputed her signature and further got issued legal notice through Advocate; that while the matter was pending before the Tahsildar, petitioner’s mother executed sale deed Nos.733 and 734 of 2010, dated 11.05.2010 in favour of her two sons to an extent of Acs.2 – 20 gts each out of subject property, however, the respondent No.4 passed an Order dated 22.07.2011, regularizing the Bhuvikraya Dastaveju, to an extent of Acs.5 – 02 gts as against Acs.6 – 03 gts, ignoring the objections submitted by the petitioner’s mother. 5. Aggrieved by the Order dated 22.07.2011, petitioner’s mother and his brother preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 without calling for records and without verifying the documents, dismissed the appeal vide proceedings No.D/14/2013, dated 30.08.2013; that petitioner’s mother expired during the pendency of the appeal and as such, the petitioner and his brother filed revision under Section 9 of A.P.Lands in Rights and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971, before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 without examining the issue independently, dismissed the revision on 06.07.2020. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred the present writ petition. The petitioner’s brother independently filed W.P.No.13440 of 2020, and during the pendency of writ petition, he expired and since no steps were taken to bring the legal heirs on record, this Court by Order dated 07.07.2025, dismissed the writ petition as abated. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner’s mother has categorically denied the execution of alleged Bhuvikraya Dastaveju, dated 21.08.1999 and also disputed her signature on the document and stated that she used to sign as ‘Suvarna’, however, in the alleged document, the signature of petitioner’s mother was shown as ‘Suvarnamma’. He further submitted that the alleged document is an agreement of sale and is not a sale deed. 7. He further submitted that the alleged document is an agreement of sale and is not a sale deed. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that perusal of Bhuvikraya Dastaveju makes it clear that the subject land was agreed to be sold to an extent of Acs.6 – 03 gts, for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000, out of which only Rs.70,000/- was paid by respondent No.5 and the balance amount was agreed to be paid by the end of March, 2000, therefore, from the above recitals, the said document is only an agreement of sale, but not sale deed and thus, Tahsildar committed error in regularizing the agreement of sale and issuing Form-13B and respondent No.3 as well as respondent No.2 also committed error in confirming the validation proceedings contrary to the settled legal position. He further submitted that respondent No.5 has not placed any material to show that the balance amount was paid to the petitioner’s mother and in the absence of any material and evidence, the Order passed by the Tahsildar is unsustainable and as such, the impugned proceedings dated 22.07.2011 are liable to be set aside. 8. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, in Konkana Ravinder Goud Vs. Bhavanarishi Co- operative House Building Society, Hyderabad , 2003 (5) ALD 654 , wherein it was held that unregistered sale deeds can only be regularized and agreement of sale cannot be regularized, which reads as under: “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. 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.” 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 would submit that petitioner’s mother has sold the subject land to respondent No.5 for valid consideration and the entire sale consideration was paid by respondent No.5 and respondent No.4 by duly taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also examining the witnesses and villagers, rightly regularized the document dated 21.08.1999. He further submitted that the allegation of fraud and fabrication of document cannot be decided by revenue authorities and it requires detailed examination of evidence and can only be decided by a competent Civil Court. He further submitted that petitioner and his brother have filed a suit vide O.S.No.108 and 110 of 2011, respectively, before Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, for injunction, however, the same were dismissed on 01.08.2022, for default; that respondent No.5 has been in possession of the subject property and as per rule 26(6) of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, the title deed or Pass Book shall be issued only to those who are in actual possession and as such, the respondent authorities have rightly validated the sale deed and issued title deed and Pattadar Pass Book to respondent No.5. He further submitted that petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the Order and thus, writ petition is misconceived and the same is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 relied upon the decision of this Court in the W.P.No.20416 of 2008, dated 25.02.2011 and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1006 of 2013, dated 01.10.2024. The subject matter and facts of the above said case are different to that of the present case, therefore, the same have no application to the present case. 11. In the light of above pleadings and submissions made by respective Counsels, the issues that arise for consideration are that; i) Whether Bhuvikraya Dastaveju is a sale deed or an agreement of sale. ii) Whether validation proceedings dated 22.07.2011, passed by respondent No.4 are valid or bad in law. 12. Since the issue revolves around Bhuvikraya Dastaveju dated 21.08.1999, it is appropriate to examine the same as to whether the same constitutes a sale deed or an agreement of sale. Perusal of Bhuvikraya Dastaveju, discloses that that petitioner’s mother executed the said document in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.6 – 03 gts in Sy.Nos.265, 266, 267, 268 and 269, for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.70,000/- was paid on the date of execution of the said document. It was also mentioned that respondent No.5 shall pay the balance amount of Rs.70,000/- on or before March, 2,000/- and get the sale deed registered in his favour and possession has been delivered to respondent No.5 and that electricity charges in respect of said land shall be borne by respondent No.5. From the above recitals, it is clear that the document dated 21.08.1999 is only an agreement of sale and not a sale deed, since the part of sale consideration was paid and the balance amount was agreed to be paid in future and on payment of balance amount, petitioner’s mother shall execute the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.5 and thus, the document dated 21.08.1999 cannot be treated as sale deed, but only an agreement of sale. 13. 13. As per Section 5A of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, only an unregistered sale deed can be regularized (Sadabainama), by duly following procedure as contemplated under the Act and rules made thereunder, which requires collection of stamp duty and issuance of notice to the vendors. In the present case, the petitioner’s mother submitted objection petition denying the execution of sale deed including her signature. The respondent No.4 considering the application submitted by respondent No.5 as well as the objections raised has examined villagers and witnesses of the documents and has regularized the document only to an extent of Acs.5 – 02 gts with an observation that objections raised by the petitioner’s mother are baseless and the entire sale consideration has been paid and respondent No.5 has been in possession from the date of purchase. 14. It is appropriate to refer to the Judgment of this Court in Konkana Ravinder Goud (supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court categorically held that agreement of sale cannot be treated as an alienation or transfer within the scope of Section 5A of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. 15. In the light of above discussion and legal position, the document relied upon by respondent No.5 is only an agreement of sale and thus, the same cannot be regularized in view of ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Konkana Ravinder Goud (supra) and as such the regularization proceedings dated 22.07.2011 passed by respondent No.4 is contrary to the scheme and purport of Section 5A of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and thus, the Order dated 22.07.2011 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. The Order dated 22.07.2011, passed by respondent No.4 as confirmed by the R.D.O vide proceedings dated 30.08.2013 and in the revision filed before respondent No.2 vide Order dated 06.07.2020 was challenged by the writ petitioner as well as his brother independently. The writ petition filed by the brother of the petitioner vide W.P.No.13440 of 2020 was dismissed as abated as no steps were taken to bring the L.R’s of petitioner therein, who died during the pendency of the writ petition. 16. The writ petition filed by the brother of the petitioner vide W.P.No.13440 of 2020 was dismissed as abated as no steps were taken to bring the L.R’s of petitioner therein, who died during the pendency of the writ petition. 16. It is a specific case of the petitioner that during the pendency of validation proceedings before respondent No.4, his mother executed two sale deeds i.e., sale deed Nos.733 and 734 of 2010, both dated 11.05.2010, in favour of petitioner and his brother and this writ petition is filed basing on the sale deed No.734 of 2010 in respect of Acs.2 – 20 gts and therefore, this Order is confined only to the extent of Acs.2 – 20 gts, which is being claimed by the petitioner. 17. In the result, writ petition is allowed and impugned Order dated 06.07.2020 passed by respondent No.2 in file No.F2/4502/2017, as well as appellate Order dated 30.08.2013, passed by respondent No.3 in file No.B/14/2013 and the Original Order dated 22.07.2011, passed by respondent No.4 in file No.C/735/2006, are set aside only to the extent of petitioner’s claim of land admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stands closed.