IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7348 of 2008 BETWEEN S. Premsagar Rao and another. ... PETITIONERS AND The Joint Collector, Nalgonda District and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. N. SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE MR. Y. RAMA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: Though the interlocutory applications are listed for hearing, at the request and consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition itself is disposed of by this order. 2. The writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 29.10.2007 issued in proceedings No.F2/8534/2006 passed by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda. The first respondent in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 allowed the revision filed by the third respondent and set aside the mutation order dated 15.11.2005 granted in favour of the petitioners. 3. Petitioners herein and third respondent are own brothers and they are sons of one Late Sri S. Seshagiri Rao. Petitioners herein approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinthappally, to effect mutation for land admeasuring Ac.10.24 guntas alleging that there was memorandum of gift dated 16.07.2003 executed by their brother i.e. third respondent, in their favour. They have also sought mutation of the land, which stood in the name of their mother late S. Anasuyamma, alleging that she executed a memorandum of gift in their favour of an extent of Ac.13.04 guntas in Sy.Nos.491, 493, 494 and 503/1 on 05.05.2000. On the aforesaid applications, the MRO by order dated 15.11.2005 effected mutation in favour of he petitioners. 4. Aggrieved by the said mutation, the third respondent herein moved the revisional authority by revision/representation dated 22.11.2006 and the revisional authority i.e. the Joint Collector, mainly on the ground that the MRO has not followed the procedure and has also not issued notice to the third respondent, has set aside the order dated 15.11.2005 and further ordered to restore the name of the third respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. 5. In this writ petition it is contended by Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that in view of the finding recorded by the revisional authority, he should have remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the primary authority. He also submits that as there was memorandum of gift executed by the third respondent as well as late S. Anasuyamma, there was no ground for interference by the revisional authority. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, who came on record in view of death of the third respondent, that the memorandum of gifts set up by the petitioners are false and concocted and there were no such gifts at all. 7. On a reading of the impugned order of the revisional authority it is clear that the order is passed on the ground that the third respondent was not given notice before effecting mutation for the land in question in favour of the petitioners. It is also to be noticed that though it is the case of the third respondent that there were no such gift executed by late S. Anasuyamma, even otherwise in normal circumstances, the sons are also entitled for share in the land held by their mother. Whether the gifts were set up by the petitioners or not is a matter to be examined by recording evidence by giving opportunity to the petitioners as well as the third respondent. As much as the impugned order of the revisional authority is passed mainly on the ground that no notice was issued to the third respondent before ordering mutation by the MRO, the revisional authority should have remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the primary authority i.e. MRO. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it a fit case to modify the order of the revisional authority. In that view of the matter, while confirming the order of the revisional order to the extent of setting aside the order dated 15.11.2005 ordering mutation in favour of the petitioners, I direct the matter to be enquired afresh on the claim of the petitioners by the MRO. It is needless to observe that the MRO shall issue notice to the petitioners as well as the respondents 4 and 5 before taking appropriate action on the applications filed by the petitioners for mutation. The said exercise shall be completed by the MRO within a period of three (3) months from today. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J July 12, 2011 DSK