IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24424 of 2001 Between: 1 D. Prasanna Kumar, S/o. Late D. Hanumantha Rao, R/o. Dammanna Peta, Gambirraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District. 2 D. Prabhakar Rao, S/o. Late D. Hanumantha Rao, R/o. Dammanna Peta, Gambirraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District. 3 D. Prakash Rao, S/o. Late D. Hanumantha Rao, R/o. Dammanna Peta, Gambirraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District. 4 D. Neeraja, W/o. D. Prasad Rao, R/o. Dammanna Peta, Gambirraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District. 5 D. Sai Reddy, S/o. D. Bal Reddy, R/o. Dammanna Peta, Gambirraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District. 6 D. Narayan Reddy, S/o. D. Bal Reddy, R/o. Dammanna Peta, Gambirraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 2 The Revenue divisional Officer, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gambhirraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District. 4 Smt. Kanyagari Chandrakala Devi, W/o. Ram Reddy, Gudikandula Village, Mididoddi Mandal, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3:AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. P.V.NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 19.07.2001 passed by respondent No.2 whereby he cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners and directed respondent No.3 to take consequential steps. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.V.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4. On the petitioners approaching respondent No.3, the latter entered their names in the revenue record and granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour in respect of different extents of lands comprised in Survey Nos.139 etc. of Gambirraopet and 784 etc., of Damannapet. Thereafter, respondent No.4 approached respondent No.2 on 02.07.2001 with a request to cancel pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners and enter her name in the revenue record. The said representation was entertained and the impugned order was passed by respondent No.2. A perusal of the said order shows that respondent No.4 produced a copy of the decree in O.S.No.202 of 1990, based on which, respondent No.2 cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners and directed respondent No.3 to take consequential steps. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the order of respondent No.2 was questioned in the revision before respondent No.1, since the order passed by respondent No.2 is patently without jurisdiction, the writ petition need not be dismissed by relegating the petitioners to pursue the revision petition. He placed reliance on Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and submitted that even if respondent No.4 has acquired any right, she can only approach respondent No.3, who, after giving notice under Section 5(3) of the Act, shall pass appropriate orders. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the petitioners did not derive any title to the land, which was stated to have been purchased by them during the pendency of the civil suit pending between respondent No.4 and the vendors of the petitioners. He further submitted that the said transaction is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Having carefully considered the submissions of the respective learned counsel, I am of the view that respondent No.2 exercised the jurisdiction, which is not vested in him in entertaining the application filed by respondent No.4 and cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the petitioners. Under Section 4 of the Act, if any person acquires by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a Court or otherwise, any right or otherwise, he shall intimate the same in writing to the Tahsildar concerned within 90 days from the date of such acquisition. Under Section 5(2) of the Act, where the Tahsildar has reason to believe that the applicant has acquired such a right and that amendment to the record of rights has to be effected, he shall carry out the amendment after following the procedure prescribed under Section 5(3) of the Act. The said provision envisages issue of notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment. In the instant case, respondent No.2 exercised the power vested in the Tahsildar. When the power is specifically vested in a particular authority by a statutory provision, it is only that authority who is empowered to exercise such a power, unless the statute itself provides for delegation of such power. Indeed, respondent No.2 is the appellate authority under Section 5(5) of the Act to examine the correctness or otherwise of an order passed under Section 5(3) of the Act by the Tahsildar. Therefore, he ought not to have entertained the application filed by respondent No.4 for cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds and correction of entries in the revenue record. He should have relegated respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 and allowed respondent No.3 to pass an appropriate order after following the procedure prescribed under Section 5(3) of the Act. In view of this incontrovertible position in law, it is not necessary to drive the petitioners to pursue the revision petition before respondent No.1. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. Respondent No.4 is given liberty to approach respondent No.3 for correction of entries in the revenue record on the basis of the decree said to have been obtained by her. It is needless to observe that before deciding on the application of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 shall give notices to the petitioners and respondent No.4. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th MARCH, 2009. kvni