HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.18589 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed to declare as illegal and set aside the order of the 1st Respondent i.e., Joint Collector, Medak District in File No.F3/1522/2008-F3/18/ROR/2008, dated 13-08-2008. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of land admeasuring Acs.1.32 guntas in Sy.No.684/AA, situate at Patighanapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. He claims to have purchased the said land from the original owners Tammali Veeramani, wife of late T.Nagaiah and her sons by registered sale deed bearing Document No.7060/2007, dated 15-03-2007 and by virtue of the said sale, he has been in possession of the said land. His name was also mutated by Proceedings dated 06-06-2008 of the 3rd Respondent-Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal and Pattedar Passbooks were also issued in his favour by necessary mutations in the revenue records in the year 2007- 2008. Before the petitioner purchased the said land from Tammali Veeramani and her sons, there was a dispute with reference to the entry of the name of Tammali Muralidhar in the pahanies from 1996-1997. The said vendors of the petitioner, disputing the correctness of the entries made by the incorporation of name of Tammali Muralidhar, filed an appeal before the 2nd Respondent viz., the Revenue Divisional officer, Medak under Section 5-B of the A.P. Record of Rights in land and Pattedar Passbook Act, 1971. In the said appeal, Tammali Muralidhar was alone impleaded as the respondent besides the official respondents viz., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheru and Panchayat Secretary of Patighanapur Village. The said Muralidhar remained ex parte. The 2nd Respondent herein called for a Report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheru. According to the Report, the name of one, Tammali Laxmaiah, who is the father of the Muralidhar, was removed from the occupant column in the pahanies 1996-1997 and in the year 1998-1999 pahani, the name of Muralidhar was recorded as pattedar without showing any specific remarks. For the subsequent year 1999-2000, the name of Tammali Nagaiah, son of Radhaiah was rounded off and again the name of Muralidhar was recorded as pattedar. The said entry appears to be on the alleged purchase of the land by Muralidhar by a sale deed bearing document No.5786/96. It was also reported that the said Muralidhar sold away the entire extent of the land i.e., Ac.3.24 guntas to the 4th Respondent herein viz., T.Srinivas Reddy. Although the Report of the Mandal Revenue Officer revealed that the 5th Respondent had purchased the said land and subsequently sold to 4th Respondent, since the said documents were not produced before the 2nd Respondent herein during the consideration of the appeal of the vendors of the petitioners, the 2nd Respondent allowed the said appeal and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to restore the original entries as existed prior to 1996-1997 in all the pahanies till date. The 4th Respondent herein claims to have purchased the land under dispute from the 5th Respondent and his mother through their Agreement-cum-GPA Holder Ch.Prabhakar by a sale deed dated 03-12- 2005. Claiming that the interest over the land had already been passed in favour of the 4th Respondent herein and as the aforesaid orders were passed by the 2nd Respondent herein without impleading him as respondent, the 4th Respondent preferred revision petition before the 1st Respondent herein. As mentioned above, the petitioner claims to have purchased the very same land in dispute from Tammali Veeramani and her sons on 15-03-2007 itself. However, vendors of the petitioner- Tammali Veeramani and others, who were the appellants before the Revenue Divisional Officer and whose appeal was allowed, were not impleaded as Respondents to the Revision Petition. However, the 1st Respondent herein proceeded to hear the matter and allowed the same by the impugned orders. Heard both the learned counsel. Sri K.V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the petitioner alone is the absolute owner and possessor of the land through the rightful owners Tammali Veeramani and her sons and therefore his name alone is entitled to be incorporated in the revenue records. On the other hand, Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent herein submits that the land in dispute fell to the share of Laxmaiah, who was one of the sons of original owner Radhaiah and he purchased from the said persons who are alone lawful owners of the land. He, therefore, contends that the 4th Respondent alone is entitled for seeking entry of his name in the records. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. From the discussion as above, it is evident that by the time the 2nd Respondent decided the appeal, the 4th Respondent purportedly became the absolute owner. It is also not in dispute that by the time the 1st Respondent allowed the Revision Petition, the petitioner allegedly became the absolute owner by virtue of the purchase under the sale deed dated 15-03-2007. The 4th Respondent was not a party in the appeal before the 2nd Respondent and the Petitioner was not a party to the revision petition before the 1st Respondent. It is therefore evident that both the orders i.e., orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in case No.A3/2107/05, dated 12-02-2007 and the orders of the 1st Respondent in File NoF3/1522/2008-F3/18/ROR/2008, dated 13- 08-2008 were passed without the presence of the necessary parties. The said orders are, therefore, liable to be set aside. As the petitioner and the 4th Respondent have set up rival claims one against the other, the matter is remanded to the 2nd Respondent viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District for de novo enquiry. The 2nd Respondent is directed to show the names of both the petitioner and the 4th Respondent as parties to the appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after due notice to both the parties as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner and the 4th Respondent are at liberty to produce such documents as they deem appropriate in support of their case. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Until the disposal of the enquiry, status quo as on today shall be in force. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 15th November, 2010. skmr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.18589 of 2008 Date : 15-11-2010 Between : M.Venkat Reddy .. Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy and 4 Others .. Respondents