IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9331 of 2009 Between: 1 Uppari Vijay Ramulu S/o. Uppari Maldakal R/o. Amarchintha Village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 Uppari Laxmi Narayana S/o. U. Maldakal R/o. Amarchintha Village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 Uppari Anjaneyulu S/o. Uppari Chandraiah R/o. Amarchintha Village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 Uppari Raganna S/o. Uppari Chandraiah R/o. Amarchintha Village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 5 Uppari Munindra S/o. U. Chandraiah R/o. Amarchintha Village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Narayanpet Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Tahsildar Narva Mandal Mahaboobnagar District. 3 Pedda Devi Reddy S/o. Bal Reddy R/o. Damagnapoor Village under Chinnachintakunta Mandal. 4 Chinna Devi Reddy S/o. Bal Reddy R/o. Damagnapoor Village under Chinnachintakunta Mandal. 5 Kammari Gopal S/o. Bhaghavanthu R/o. Komarlingampally Village under Narva Mandal. 6 Surishetty Balamma W/o. Simhaiah R/o. Plot No. 154 Vasavi Colony, Kothapeta, Hyderabad. 7 Surishetty Srinivasulu S/o. Simhaiah R/o. Plot No. 154 Vasavi Colony, Kothapeta, Hyderabad. 8 Lankala Gopal Reddy S/o. Chinna Reddy R/o. Komarlingampally Village under Narva Mandal. 9 Lankala Sunitha W/o. Gopal Reddy R/o. Komarlingampally Village under Narva Mandal. 10 S. Sandhya W/o. S. Suresh R/o. Plot No. 154 Vasavi Colony, Kothapeta, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the respondent No.1 in Proceedings No. A/368/2008, dated 30-06-2008 and entries made by the respondent No. 2 in recording the names of the respondents No. 3 to 10 in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 19-36 guntas in Sy. No.78 and Ac. 4-00 in Sy. No. 77, Situated at Village Komarlingampally, Mandal Narva, Mahaboobnagar District, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of Natural justice and consequently to set-aside the names of the respondents No.3 to 10 from the revenue entries in respect of said lands and direct the respondent No. 1 and 2 to record the names of the petitioners herein in the revenue entires in respect of said lands in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.BHOOMA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.9331 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for brevity ‘the Act’) before the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, Mahaboobnagar District, feeling aggrieved by the entries made in favour of respondents 3 to 10 in respect of Ac.9.17 guntas of land in Sy.No.77 and Ac.19.36 guntas in Sy.No.78 of Kumarlingampally village, Narwa Mandal. Through his order dated 30-06-2008, the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal leaving it open to the petitioners to file a suit to challenge the sale deeds, executed in favour of respondents 1 to 3 and 6 therein, which gave rise to the entries in the revenue records. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is no doubt true that the 1st respondent himself recorded a finding to the effect that some of the contesting respondents have purchased the land from other respondents. But there is nothing on record to disclose that any sale was made from the ancestors of the petitioners viz., Uppari China Narasappa and Lankala Nadipenna. That observation certainly would tell upon the validity of the entry in the revenue records. However, the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 9 of the Act. The Joint Collector can call for the records and examine the very matter on the question of fact and law. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act against the order passed by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, Mahaboobnagar District. The Joint Collector shall examine the matter in detail with reference to the contentions advanced by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the revision. No costs. ___________________ 30th April 2009 KVR