(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3, Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 14 and 16 in W.P.No.23833 of 2019 and respondents 4 and 6 in W.P.No.23840 of 2019, and Sri E. Ajay Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 6 to 13 and 15 in W.P.No.23833 of 2019 and respondents 5, 9 to 13 in W.P.No.23840 of 2019.
(2.) This is the second round of litigation. Against the proceedings of Tahsildar dated 21.01.2009 validating the unregistered sale deed in favour of the unofficial respondents as confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority the petitioners herein filed W.P.No.2616 of 2012. By order dated 13.07.2016, learned single Judge, having held that the proceedings are not validly made, set aside the same and remanded to the 3rd respondent therein to issue fresh notices to the petitioners. Learned Judge also directed to conduct survey by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, on the lands claimed by the petitioners and the 4th respondent by giving prior notice to both the parties and respondents 5 to 11 therein and based on the survey report, the Tahsildar was directed to settle the issue. In terms thereof, the Tahsildar passed orders on 14.02.2018 holding that the claim for regularization of unregistered sale deed is not valid and that the applicants are not entitled to regularization as their vendor was not a pattadar as on the date of regularization i.e., 21.10.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the unofficial respondents preferred appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer. By order dated 24.10.2019, the Revenue Divisional Officer reversed the decision of the Tahsildar and affirmed the earlier decision of the Tahsildar dated 21.01.2009, which was set aside by this Court and directed for taking up the proceedings for validating the sale deed and mutation of the names of the unofficial respondents in the revenue records.
(3.) Briefly noted the undisputed facts are as under: