21. Plain reading of Section 5-A of the Act 1971 makes it clear that there cannot be validation of agreement of sale. The principle of law on this aspect is well settled and needs no reiteration. Therefore, on that ground itself, the entire exercise undertaken by the Revenue Divisional Officer falls to the ground. Only to overcome this legal position, ground ‘E’ of writ eptition was amended. As per the amended ground ‘E’, the petitioners contend that the Joint Collector erred in relying upon the wrong translation made in document, dated 20.10.1973, when originally the pleading of the petitioners was that they are not relying on the document, dated 20.10.1973. Thus, whether the translation was wrongly made has no relevance. Further more, as seen from the order passed by the Joint Collector, dated 20.05.2002, his decision was not based only on the wrong description of Ranga Reddy District in the translated version of the document, dated 20.10.1973, but he has considered various other aspects to point out that the document, dated 20.10.1973, is not reliable. Having considered the matter on merits, the Joint Collector found that as there was no document of alienation of transfer made or affected otherwise than an unregistered document for consideration under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act 1971, the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer are not valid. Such decision cannot be
