Reserved on: 20.01.2026 Pronounced on: 23.01.2026 Uploaded on: .01.2026 APHC010006472023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.436 of 2023 and 26173 of 2023 WRIT PETITION No.436 of 2023 Between: 1. DADI TATA RAO(DIED), (DIED) PER LRS, THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 HEREIN. 2. I POLARNMA,, DAD W/O LATE DADI TATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. DADI PRASADA RAO,, S/O LATE DADI TATA. RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/ 1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM. POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. DADI VENKATA RAMESWARA RAO,, S/O LATE DADI TATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/ 1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. DADI NOOKA RAJU, (DIED) 6. DADI CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,, S/O LATE DADI TATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7. DADI KUMARI @ SADARAM KUMARI,, D/O LATE DADI TATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/ 1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 8. DADI VENKATA LAKSHMI,, W/O LATE DADI NOOKA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO 3-20/1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 9. DADI HEMA NUKAMBIKA AND RAJA RAJESWARI,, D/O LATE DADI 2 NOOKA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 10. DADI RAJA RAJESWARI,, D/O LATE DADI NOOKA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/ 1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AT VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITYCUMJOINT COLLECTOR V, ISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, PENDURTHI MANDAL, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPANAM DISTRICT. 6. BENDAPUDI MALLIKARJUNA RAO, S/O LATE PERAJU, R/O D.NO.31-22-9, DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7. BENDAPUDI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O MALLIKARJUNA RAO, R/O D.NO.31-22-9, DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM. 8. BENDAPUDI PERRAJU, S/O MALLIKARJUNA RAO, R/O D.NO.31- 22-9, DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM. 9. MUDIGODA RATNAMALA, W/O KOTESWAR RAO, R/O D.NO.31- 22-9, DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM 10. BODDEPALLI ANANDA RAO S /O SRI APPALA RAMU, HINDU, AGE 64 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R /O DOOR NO 2 -216, VENKATAPURAM, IBRAHIMBAG 532410, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 11. BEHARA MARUTHI S /O SRI RAVI, HINDU, AGE 44 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R /O DOOR NO 32 -6 -73, NATAYYAPALEM 530012, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 12. MALLA SANYASI NAIDU S /O SRI SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R /O HOUSE NO 2 -72, ARIPAKA 531035, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 13. BONIGI SRINIVASA RAO S /O SRI SIMHACHALAM, HINDU, AGE 42 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R /O THOLAPI, S M PURAM, PONDURU 531402, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 14. NAMBALA SRINIVASA RAO S /O SRI CHANDRAYYA, HINDU, AGE 42 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R /O DOOR NO 4 -110 /1, DURGA NAGAR COLONY, PEDA NARAVA 530027, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 15. MALLA CHINNARI W /O SRI MRK BANGARU NAIDU, HINDU, AGE 3 40 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R /O DOOR NO 103 /3, KOTANAGARA 530027, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 16. DODDI RAMA KRISHNA S /O SRI SANYASI RAO, HINDU, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R /O DOOR NO 1 -142, SARAGADAM STREET, KOTHAPALEM GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM 530027. 17. GOVADA KIRAN KUMAR S /O SRI SUBBA RAJU, HINDU, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R /O DOOR NO 50 -52 -9 /2, SF -7, SRINIVASA APARTMENTS, NE LAYOUT, KRISHNA MANDIR, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 530013. 18. VEDULA SRINIVASA RAO S /O SRI RAMA RAO, HINDU, AGE 37 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R /O DOOR NO 58 -2 -46, SYAM NAGAR COLONY, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 530018 19. MALLA RAMAKASI BANGARU NAIDU S /O LATE SRI SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R /O DOOR NO 1 -103 /3, KOTANARAVA, VIA GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530027 RR 10 TO 19 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DT 10/03/2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN IA 02/2023. 20. GOPISETTI SUBBA RAO S/O LATE PEDA SURYANARAYANA, D.NO.59-53-9/6, BALAJI HILLS, B.S. LAYOUT, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530013. R20 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DT.11.05.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.4 OF 2023. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the order in R.P.No.08/2005 (D.Dis.No.3513/2005/D2) dated 21.6.2022 passed by the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam/3rd respondent confirming the order in D.Dis.No.2326/2003/C, dated 7.6.2005 of the RDO/4th respondent and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. GP FOR REVENUE 4 WRIT PETITION No.26173 of 2023 Between: 1. DADI TATA RAO (DIED), PER LRS, THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 HEREIN. 2. DADI POLAMMA,, W/O LATE DADI TATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. DADI PRASADA RAO,, S/O LATE DADI TATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. DADI VENKATA RAMESWARA RAO,, S/O LATE DADI TATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. DADI NOOKA RAJU (DIED), PER LRS, PETITIONERS 9 TO 11 HEREIN. 6. DADI KUMARI @ SADARAM KUMARI,, D/O LATE DADI TATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/ 1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7. DADI VENKATA LAKSHMI,, W/O LATE DADI NOOKA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/ 1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 8. DADI HEMA NUKAMBIKA AND RAJA RAJESWARI,, D/O LATE DADI NOOKA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 9. DADI RAJA RAJESWARI,, D/O LATE DADI NOOKA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-20/1, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPATNAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT AT VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT 5 AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7. SRI VEDULA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O SRI RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O D.NO.58-2-46, SYAM NAGAR COLONY, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530018. 8. BEHARA MARUTHI, S/O SRI RAVI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O D.NO.32-6-73, NATAYYAPALEM-530012, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. 9. BODDEPALLI ANANDA RAO, S/O SRI APPALA RAMU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-216, VENKATAPURAM, IBRAHIMBAG, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT-532410. 10. BONIGI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O SRI SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O THOLAPI, S.M.PURAM, PONDURU, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 531402. 11. DODDI RAMA KRISHNA, S/O SRI SANYASI RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-142, SARAGADAM STREET, KOTHAPALEM, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530027. 12. GOVADA KIRAN KUMAR, S/O SRI SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O D.NO.50-52-9/2, SF-7, SRINIVASA APARTMENTS, NE LAYOUT, KRISHNA MANDIR, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530013. 13. MALLA CHINNARI, W/O SRI MRK BANGARU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O D.NO.103/3, KOTANAGARA, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530027. 14. MALLA RAMAKASI BANGARU NAIDU, S/O LATE SRI SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O D.NO.103/3, KOTANAGARA, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530027. 15. MALLA SANYASI NAIDU, S/O SRI SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2-72, ARIPAKA, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530035. 16. NAMBALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O SRI CHANDRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O D.NO.4-110/1, DURGA NAGAR COLONY, PEDA NARAVA, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530027. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the land conversion 6 proceedings in D.Dis.No.118/2021/LRDT, dated .1.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent/RDO and the approved layout proceedings in L.P.No.6/2020/1086/z5/DPMS, dated 29.6.2021 issued by the 5th respondent as illegal, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR TOURISM(AP) 7 COMMON ORDER: Since the issues involved in these two Writ Petitions are arising out of the same survey number and same facts, as such, both the Writ Petitions are heard analogously and decided by the common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.436 of 2023 are being taken for disposal of these two Writ Petitions. 2. The Writ Petition No.436 of 2023 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "….to issue an appropriate writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the order in R.P.No.08/2005 (D.Dis.No.3513/2005/D2) dated 21.6.2022 passed by the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam/3rd respondent confirming the order in D.Dis.No.2326/2003/C, dated 7.6.2005 of the RDO/4th respondent and quash the same and pass such other orders……" 3. The facts of the case: One B.Pera Raju is the rightful owner of the land to an extent of Acs.33.00 cents in Narava Village. On the death of said B.Pera Raju, the said property was devolved upon the 6th respondent and his elder brother late Dr. Sarabhalingam. Out of the said extent of Acs.33.00 cents, some land was acquired by the Government. 4. Later, during the lifetime of Dr. Sarabhalingam, the respondent Nos.6 to 9 including Dr. Sarabhalingam have executed an agreement of 8 sale to an extent of Acs.26.00 cents on 12.08.1978 in favour of Dadi Thata Rao (deceased) and the petitioners 2 to 10 are the legal heirs of the said Dadi Thata Rao. The respondent Nos.6 to 9 have executed nine different sale deeds for a total extent of Acs.17.70 cents in favour of Dadi Thata Rao, out of total extent of Acs.26.00 cents, as the said Dadi Thata Rao has failed to pay the balance sale consideration as per the sale agreement dated 12.08.1978. As such, the said Dadi Thata Rao (deceased) has become the owner to an extent of Acs.17.70 cents. 5. Respondent Nos.6 to 9 in the Writ Petition have filed suit O.S.No.491 of 2003 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam, for permanent injunction against Dadi Thata Rao restraining the defendant therein and his men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of Acs.5.87 cents in Sy.262/1 of Narava Village, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam District. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 02.06.2010. Assailing the same, Dadi Thata Rao has filed an appeal, vide A.S.No.151 of 2010, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. While the appeal is pending, Dadi Thata Rao has passed away. Hence, filed an interlocutory application to bring the legal heirs of Dadi Thata Rao and the petitioners 2 to 10 herein are added as legal heirs in A.S.No.151 of 2010. Eventually, the said appeal was dismissed on merits, vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2018. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Dadi Thata Rao have filed Second Appeal No.153 of 2020 before this Court under Section 100 of the C.P.C. The said Second Appeal was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 09.07.2025. 9 6. The said Dadi Thata Rao has filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) before the Appellate Authority- cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, admittedly without any source, on the ground that Bendapudi Mallikharjuna Rao, son of Pera Raju has entered into an agreement through an unregistered agreement dated 12.08.1978 to sell the land to an extent of Acs.26.00 cents from out of the total land admeasuring Acs.26.30 cents to Dadi Thata Rao held in Sy.Nos.242 and 262 of Narava Village of Pendurthi Mandal. Having executed the agreement of sale, the Tahsildar has issued copies of 10(1), Adangal and Pattadar Pass Books in favour of the 10th respondent in the Writ Petition and the very issuance of pattadar pass books even after sale of lands is found irregular and therefore, he requested the Revenue Divisional Authority-cum-Appellate Authority to conduct a discrete enquiry and to do justice to the petitioner. 7. The Appellate Authority under Section 5(5) of the Act has dismissed the appeal, vide proceedings dated 07.06.2005 basing upon the observations made in the judgment in O.S.No.491 of 2003 and holding that the petitioner is the owner to an extent of Acs.17.70 cents and the petitioner is not having any right, title over the property to an extent of Acs.5.11 cents. 8. Aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Authority-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer in Rc.No.2326/2003/C dated 07.06.2005, the said Dadi Thata Rao has preferred Revision before the Revisional Authority- cum-Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act. The Revisional 10 Authority-cum-Joint Collector has dismissed the Revision filed by Dadi Thata Rao-1st petitioner herein, who is deceased, confirming the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Appellate Authority under Section 5(5) of the Act. 9. The said proceedings of the Appellate Authority-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revisional Authority-cum-Joint Collector have been assailed in the present Writ Petition on the ground that the Revisional Authority failed to provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner to submit objections and the M.R.O. was not examined in the presence of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners herein have acquired the right, title over the subject property by way of adverse possession and on some other grounds. All the grounds are not valid and legal grounds. 10. While the Writ Petition is pending before this Court, respondent Nos.10 to 19 have filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 to implead them as party respondents to the Writ Petition. The said I.A was allowed, vide order dated 10.03.2023 and the respondent Nos.10 to 20 were brought on record as party respondents to the Writ Petition. 11. The contention of learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.10 to 20 is that the respondent Nos.5 to 9 have sold the property subsequent to the filing of the suit to an extent of Acs.2.18 cents in Sy.No.262/1 part under registered document bearing No.1469/2005 dated 28.02.2005 to one Gopisetty Srinivasa Rao and an extent of Acs.2.00 cents was sold to one Vuppala Rajeswara Rao under a registered document bearing No.1471/2005 dated 28.02.2005 11 registered in the office of Gajuwaka and the respondent Nos.10 to 20 in turn, have purchased the said property from Gopisetti Srinivasa Rao and Vuppala Rajeswara Rao, under different sale deeds vide document Nos.1095, 1097, 1049, 1048, 1047 dated 27.02.2020 and also vide document Nos.3656/2005 dated 17.06.2005, 5207/2005 dated 12.09.2005, 616/2006 dated 01.03.2006, 3657/2005 dated 17.06.2005, 3655/2005 dated 17.06.2005, 5210/2005 dated 12.09.2005, 618/2005 dated 01.03.2006, 5208/2005 dated 12.09.2005 and 619/2006 dated 01.03.2006 and further stated that the said Dadi Tata Rao has purchased Acs.17.70 cents towards sale agreement dated 12.08.1978. 12. 12. Counsels appeared for the respondent Nos.10 to 20 have taken this Court to the observations made in the suit judgment and the Appellate Court’s judgments and contended that the 1st petitioner is the owner to an extent of Acs.17.70 cents and the rest of the property has been purchased by the respondent Nos.10 to 20, vide different sale deeds and the petitioners are not the owners of the property to an extent of Acs.5.11 cents as they are unable to pay the sale consideration and failed to obtain regular agreement of sale and further stated that the right will be transferred only on execution of regular sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and as the petitioners have obtained sale deed to an extent of Acs.17.70 cents, they are not the owners of the land to an extent of Acs.8.68 cents and out of Acs.8.68 cents, the respondent Nos.10 to 20 purchased an extent of Acs.5.11 cents. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 13. Heard Sri Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent 12 Nos.10 to 19, and Sri S.Ananth, learned counsel for the respondent No.20. 14. On analyzing the facts and the circumstances, after giving my thoughtful consideration, this Court gives the exposition in the following: 15. In Ratnamma W/o B.K. Jayaramireddy Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmavaram, reported in (2015) 6 ALD 609 (DB), a Division Bench of the Common High Court inter alia held that no representation can be treated as an appeal and it is axiomatic that the right of appeal is a substantive right and must be conferred by a statute and the appeal is provided under Section 5(5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pasttadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short hereafter called as ‘the Act’) for against the original proceedings or substantive determination under Sections 4, 5 and 5-A of the Act. 16. Admittedly, in the present case, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 9, who are the rightful owners, to prefer an appeal, there should be a source in pursuance of the above judgment. In the present case, there are no impugned proceedings to prefer an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. Therefore, the said judgment is aptly applicable to the present case. On the said ground, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the present case, a representation was filed to conduct discreet enquiry and without any order from the primary authority or without out any source. Hence, the writ petitioners cannot maintain any appeal before the appellate authority under Section 5(5) of the Act. As the order 13 of the Appellate Authority is nullity due to lack of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, the consequential order of revision under Section 9 of the Act is deemed to be nullity, as no revision is maintainable against an order of nullity. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. 18. On the other hand, the argument of the learned counsels for respondent Nos.10 to 20 was that unless the person acquired a full title to the property purchased he cannot be called a purchaser of that property under the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a mere contract of sale does not confer any title to the property in favour of the vendee and unless and until a regular sale deed is executed in pursuance of the agreement of sale title to the property cannot be said to have been passed in favour of the vendee and the vendee cannot be termed as purchaser unless and until a full title passes to him. 19. Section 17 of the Registration Act that outlines that the documents that have to be compulsorily registered. From a reading of Section 17(1)(b), it is clear that a sale deed is to be registered compulsorily. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act makes it clear that a sale deed exceeding of sum of Rs.100/- can only be effected by a registered document. A combined reading of these two provisions, it would clearly show that a deed under which there is a transfer of ownership in exchange for consideration and such consideration is over a sum of Rs.100/-, under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that the same can only be done by a registered instrument. In the instant case, the dispute is with regard to Acs.5.82 14 cents in Sy.No.262/1 approximately and there is no right transferred to the petitioners and there is no sale deed obtained by the petitioners as contemplated under the Act. 20. The possession of the land by the petitioners is admittedly permissive possession; to claim adverse possession must prove that the possession is open, knowledge and continuous un-interrupted possession and a person pleading adverse possession has to establish all facts necessary by adducing evidence. 21. The petitioners, who claim to be in possession of the property pursuant to the agreement of sale under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property, cannot claim adverse possession. This Court relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roop Singh (Dead) by LRs Vs. Ram Singh (Dead) by LRs reported in (2000)3 SCC 708 and it is settled law that a person in possession pursuant to the agreement of sale under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot claim adverse possession. In the present case, the petitioners admittedly entered into an agreement of sale and therefore they cannot claim any adverse possession. Therefore, the said contention is hereby rejected. 22. Therefore, the findings of the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority does not require to be interfered or meddled with the orders, as the orders are sustainable under law. The contention raised in the memorandum of grounds that the petitioners are perfected their right title by way of adverse possession is untenable. Therefore, this Court has not seen any merit in the Writ Petition No.436 of 2023. 15 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.436 of 2023 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. The Writ Petition No.26173 of 2023 is filed seeking direction to declare the land conversion proceedings in D.Dis.No.118/2021/LRDT, dated Nil.01.2021 of the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer and the approved layout proceedings in L.P.No.6/2020/1086/Z5/DPMS dated 29.06.2021 issued by the 5th respondent-Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority, as illegal, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to set aside the same. 25. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.436 of 2023 and for the reasons recorded therein, the Writ Petition No.26173 of 2023 is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending in both the Writ Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 23.01.2026 siva 16 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.436 of 2023 and 26173 of 2023 Date: 23.01.2026 siva