HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24310 of 2003 Date: 17.11.2011 Between: Rahmath Ali and 3 others. … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and 2 others. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 24310 of 2003 O R D E R : The petitioners herein claim title and possession in respect of Acs.6.12 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.51 of Chengomal village of Podur Mandal. They had earlier filed O.S.No.51 of 1992 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, R.R. District against the 3rd respondent herein for perpetual injunction restraining him from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the above said Ac.6.12 guntas of land. The said suit was decreed as prayed for by judgment dated 17.08.1999. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent approached the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 3(3) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act’) seeking deletion of the names of the petitioners from the cultivation column in the pahani for the years 1988-1989 to 1995-1996 in respect of the above said Ac.6.12 guntas of land. It was claimed by the 3rd respondent that he had purchased the said land from one Smt.Fatima Bee and her sons in the year 1958 and since then, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. It was alleged that the petitioners in collusion with the village Officials got their names entered in the pahani in the year 1992 and based on the same, they filed O.S.No.51 of 1992 for perpetual injunction. However, the Mandal Revenue Officer by order dated 25.01.2000, rejected the request of the 3rd respondent on the ground that the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.51 of 1992 was pending. Aggrieved by the said order, the 3rd respondent preferred a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act before the 1st respondent. The said revision petition was allowed by order dated 18.10.2003 thereby setting aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 25.01.2000 and directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to delete the names of the petitioners herein since they had been entered without any orders of the competent authority. There was also a direction to enter the name of the 3rd respondent herein for the year 1991-92 onwards. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that having regard to the decree in O.S.No.51 of 1992 granted in favour of the writ petitioners accepting their title and possession in respect of the land in question the 1st respondent ought not to have allowed the revision petition preferred by the 3rd respondent. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent vehemently contended that since the pahanies till the year 1992 disclosed the continuous possession and enjoyment of the 3rd respondent in respect of the land in question, particularly, in view of the order dated 20.09.1992 made under Section 5-A of the ROR Act regularizing the agreement of sale dated 20.09.1958 in favour of the 3rd respondent pursuant to which the 3rd respondent had already paid the deficit fee and accordingly the sale transaction was regularized, the 1st respondent had rightly allowed the revision petition and directed to enter the name of the 3rd respondent in the revenue records. At the outset, it is to be noticed that O.S.No.51 of 1992 filed by the writ petitioners is a suit for injunction simplicitor. Moreover, against the judgment and decree granted in favour of the petitioners in the said suit, the 3rd respondent preferred A.S.No.18 of 1999 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad and it is pending. Coming to the claim of the 3rd respondent, after conducting due enquiry as provided under section 5-A of the ROR Act, the 2nd respondent by order dated 20.09.1992 regularized the agreement of sale dated 20.09.1958 in favour of the 3rd respondent. Though the writ petitioners claimed possession of the land in question, absolutely no material could be produced either before the respondents 1 and 2 or before this Court to show how they acquired title to the said land. It is also relevant to note that they filed O.S.No.51 of 1992 after the sale transaction in favour of the 3rd respondent was regularized under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. During the pendency of O.S.No.51 of 1992, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the order of regularization dated 20.09.1992. The said appeal was dismissed on 30.01.2004. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the 1st respondent cannot be said to have committed any error in allowing the revision petition preferred by the 3rd respondent and directing to enter his name in the pahanies. Since the said order cannot be said to have suffered from any illegality, the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date:17.11.2011 KLP