THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :1749 of 2008 DATED:04-02-2008 BETWEEN: Vadla Ramaiah & 4 others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Joint Collector, Lakdikapul, Rangareddy District & 8 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 1st respondent vide proceedings in Case No.D5/9020/2004, dated 14-09-2007, as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to delete the names of the respondents 3 to 9 and restore the names of the petitioners and their forefathers in the concerned revenue records in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.12, 13, 266, 271, and 281 to an extent of Ac.15.19 guntas situated at Pamena village, Chevella mandal, Rangareddy District. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that their ancestors are the owners and possessors of an extent of Ac.15.19 guntas in Sy.Nos.12, 13, 266, 271, and 281 of Pamena village, Chevella mandal, Rangareddy District and the said lands are the dry lands suitable for cultivation only in the rainy season. It is stated that the said lands do not belong to the ancestors of the respondents 3 to 9 but taking advantage of the absence of the petitioners in the village, they got their names mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said lands and accordingly the 2nd petitioner made a representation, dated 20-08-2004, before the 2nd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevella mandal for furnishing mutation proceedings in the revenue records in ROR/23/95 and ROR/28/95 but the 2nd respondent issued a memo in C.R.No.387/2004, dated 26-08-2004, stating that no orders have been passed in ROR.23/95. It is stated that the petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) seeking rectification of the entries in the revenue records since 1995–2007 in respect of the said land of an extent of Ac.15.90 guntas in Sy.Nos.12,13, 266, 271, and 281 of Pamena village, Chevella mandal and the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Rangareddy District by his order, dated 14-09-2007, in Case No.D5/9020/2004 dismissed the revision on the ground that the revision petition is barred by limitation and is not maintainable and if the petitioners are aggrieved as to any rights with regard to possession the only course open for them is to get their dispute settled in a civil Court only under Section 8(2) of the Act. It is true that with regard to possession, the authorities, under the provisions of the Act, cannot decide as to who is in possession and the provisions of the Act relate to the entries in the revenue records only in respect of the persons who have got right, title, and possession. Therefore, with regard to the possession, it is for the petitioners to get their rights declared before the civil Court only, but insofar as the claim of the petitioners relating to the rectification of the entries in the revenue records, the revenue authorities have to conduct an enquiry and based on the enquiry if they are able to establish that they have a right, title, and possession, there cannot be any justification on the part of the authorities in rectification of the entries in the revenue records. 4. A perusal of Section 9 of the Act goes to show that there is no limitation prescribed for filing revision petition before the Joint Collector and therefore, I am of the opinion that the dismissal of the revision on the ground that the petition is barred by limitation is illegal and contrary to Section 9 of the Act. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent may take up the case afresh and issue notice to all the concerned in consideration of the same and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without any undue delay. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 04th February, 2008. Tsy