M.R.O. As on the date ol approach by the pctitioner befbre the saidAuthority, the M.R.O. was aulhorized to r.alidate thc satre uttder Section 5-A witha nominal stamp duty and registration cltarges. Theletbre, it cannotbe said that willfully he opted for rvrong Forum. Morcover,respondents hereincontested each and every procceding ol- thepetitionerhercin.When the order was passed in favour of the petitioner by the M.R.O., the respondents challengedthesame before the R.D.O. and rvhen he conflrmctl tlte same,again they challenged it before the Joint Collector and also betbrc the SingleBench. When both Courts confirmed the order, Writ Appeal rvas flled.As on the date of disposing of the matter by the Division Bench, on 05.09.2003 larvrvaslaid downin KONKANA RAVINDER GOUD Vs. BIIAVANA I{ISIII COOPERATMHOUSE BTIILDING SOCIETY, HYDERABAD antl hclclthat under Section 5 of the Act, M.R.O. is not authorised to validate the transferof the property underan agreement of sale. In pursuance of the saidjudgment, the Division Benchset aside the orders of the Single Judge andalso Revenue Authorities. [n view of the order of the M.R.O., pattedarpassbooks and title deeds were issuedin favour of petitioner herein and hisname was reflectedin the pahanies as owner and possessor of the land. -fherefore, I find it reasonableto give an oppoffunity to the petitioner herein to approach the trialCourt under E.P. proceedingsfor execution of the sale deed in his t-avour.Admittedly, judgment-debtorsentered into the compromise with the decree-holder herein and agreed toexecutesale deed only to an extent of Ac. l2-00gts., instead ofAc.20-39 gts., and he also
