HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17120 of 2009 ORDER: Though the matter is listed under the caption “interlocutory”, at the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. In the writ petition, the petitioners question the inaction on the part of the first respondent, who is the revisional authority under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, (for short ‘the Act’), in not disposing of the revision filed by them on 17.07.2009. The petitioners claim that they are the owners and possessors of the land covered by Sy.Nos.86 and 88 of Madakamvarigudem Village, admeasuring Ac.9-24 cents and Ac.8.72 cents, respectively, and the said properties are their ancestral properties. While so, the authorities under the Act have granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds for the aforesaid lands in favour of the third parties. It is the case of the petitioners that Section 9 of the Act provides a statutory remedy of filing a revision before the revisional authority and accordingly, they have filed a revision on 17.07.2009 before the first respondent, but the first respondent has not considered the matter and passed orders thereon. A counter-affidavit is filed by the official respondents wherein the very filing of an appeal by the petitioners on 17.07.2009 or claim made by them for grant of pattadar passbook is categorically denied. On the other hand, respondent No.4, who is impleaded subsequently in the writ petition, is claiming that pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.4.45 cents in Sy.No.86/1 and Ac.4.79 cents in Sy.No.86/2 is already granted in his favour by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Jeelugumilli. Heard learned counsel appearing for either of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The only grievance of the petitioners is with regard to non-disposal of the revision filed by them before the first respondent. Though learned counsel for the petitioners relied on an acknowledgment in token of receipt of the revision, dated 17.07.2009, filed by the petitioners, by the office of the Joint Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District, but without knowing the contents of the letter that was sent by way of registered post to the Office of the Joint Collector, the same cannot be taken as filing of the revision. There is also no valid explanation by the petitioners for not filing the revision before the Joint Collector in person. Inasmuch as the very filing of the revision by the petitioners is denied by the respondents in the counter- affidavit, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to grant directions to the respondents to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the lands in question in favour of third parties, they can as well file a revision before the revisional authority. On filing of such revision, the revisional authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBASH REDDY 30th June 2011 DR