HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20027 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner challenges an order dated 04.08.2007 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 1st respondent herein in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is the son of late Desham Anjaiah. Respondents 4 to 10 are the legal representatives of one late Kurra Buchaiah. Anjaiah and Butchaiah enjoyed certain lands in common and are said to have brought up a venture jointly. Buchaiah was granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.4.05 guntas, Ac.2.27 gutnas and Ac.1.38 guntas in Survey Nos.726, 727 and 729 respectively of the Korremula Village. Anjaiah, Mohd.Ahmd and Pochaiah were also given ORCs for similar extents in the same village. Buchaiah filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, 3rd respondent herein, with a request to correct certain entries. He mentioned that he acquired an extent of Ac.2.00 of land in Survey No.729, in addition to what has fallen to his share. Acting on the same, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 02.09.1998 effecting mutation in favour of Buchaiah as regards an extent of Ac.2.00 of land in Survey No.729. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent and filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 5(5) of the Act. The appeal was allowed on 18.10.2006. Respondents 4 to 10 filed a revision against it before the 1st respondent. The revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. The petitioner contends that the order passed by the 3rd respondent is patently illegal, since no notice was issued to him. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 10. It has already been mentioned that Survey No.729 is vast in extent and four individuals were granted ORCs over an extent of Ac.1.38 cents. It is not known as to from whom, Buchaiah had acquired Ac.2.00 of land in addition to what he possessed. This Court would certainly have examined the complaint of the petitioner about non-issuance of notice. However, even according to the petitioner, himself and his family members have succeeded to Ac.1.38 gutnas in Survey No.729 from Desam Anjaiah and that the land to an extent of Ac.0.32 guntas was sold in favour of one Mr.Lakshman, Ac.0.12 guntas to Paramesh and Ac.0.33 guntas to Somani. In clear terms, it is stated that the only land retained by him is the one in Survey No.726 admeasuring Ac.2.27 guntas. Once it has emerged that the petitioner does not have any subsisting interest over the land in Survey No.729, the question of his having any grievance does not arise. Even if the allegation of the petitioner that respondents 4 to 10 are trying to interfere with his possession over the land in Survey No.726 on the strength of the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer is true, the remedy for the petitioner is to file a suit and protect his possession. The order passed by the 3rd respondent did not deal with Survey No.726 held by the petitioner. In view of this, even the order of remand becomes superfluous. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed not only setting aside the order of remand, dated 04.08.2007, passed by the 1st respondent but also the order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent. The order, dated 02.09.1998, passed by the 3rd respondent in favour of Buchaiah shall be confined only to the land in Survey No.729 and the rights of the petitioner over the land in Survey No.726 shall remain unaffected by the same. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 03.03.2009 JSU HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20027 of 2007 Date: 03.03.2009 JSU