HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7162 of 2008 Date : 07.07.2011 Between : Ammasani Narsimha Reddy. …..Petitioner And Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7162 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed, questioning the order of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, dated 27th January 2007, passed in Case No.D5/2661/2006, and the consequential memo, dated 27th July 2007, issued by him in Memo No.D5/3600/07. The petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 are own brothers, and sons of one Sri Raji Reddy. The petitioner herein approached the Special Grade Deputy Collector- cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, by submitting a representation stating that himself and respondents 4 and 5 are brothers and they are owners of land in Sy.No.52, admeasuring Ac.19.24 gts., situated at Boduppal village of Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with equal shares. It was represented that he has alienated Ac.4.19 gts., to Smt. Thotakura Pentamma, and after deleting the alienated area, still, an extent of Ac.2.02 gts. remain to his share. In the representation, it was alleged that in the pahanis from 1994-95 onwards, the said Ac.2.02 gts. is added to the share of his brothers i.e. respondents 4 and 5 herein, as such, he has requested for correction of entries in the pahanis regarding Sy.No.52 of Boduppal village. The Revenue Divisional Officer has entertained the said representation made by the petitioner, and in his order dated 19.04.2006, he has recorded a finding that the name of the petitioner was omitted against Sy.No.52 with respect to Ac.2.02 gts., illegally, and accordingly, ordered for correction of entries in Column No.12 of the pahanis from 1994-95 onwards. As against the said orders of the Special Grade Deputy Collector-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 19.04.2006, the petitioner carried the matter in revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Before the revisional authority, it was the case of respondents 4 and 5 that their father Raji Reddy acquired lands including the land of Ac.19.24 gts. in Sy.No.52 of Boduppal village in Ghatkesar Mandal and all the properties were divided by them, and in the partition, land to an extent of Ac.4.19 gts. in Sy.No.52 fell to the share of the petitioner. It was also pleaded that after partition, mutation was effected with regard to their respective shares, and it was further alleged that the petitioner, having sold the entire extent of land owned by him, has moved an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer by making false allegations. The revisional authority, by impugned order dated 27th January 2007, passed in Case No.D5/2661/2006, has recorded a finding that the Revenue Divisional Officer has entertained the application for correction of entries without any authority of law and further noticed that the matter was posted for inquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer to 16.04.2006, but surprisingly, without knowledge to the counsel for respondents 4 and 5, orders were passed on 19.04.2006, by recording a finding that the matter was finally heard on 16.04.2006, which happens to be a Sunday. The revisional authority, while recording a finding that no correction can be ordered based on the oral partition, allowed the revision filed by respondents 4 and 5 and set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. In this writ petition, it is contended by the leaned counsel for petitioner that the land in Sy.No.52 was equally divided among the three brothers, as such, in the absence of any illegality in the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the revisional authority ought not to have set aside the said order. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 that under the scheme of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder, no application can be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding correction of entries in the pahanis. It is submitted that though mutations were effected in 1989-90, all the while, the petitioner has not made any complaint, but at this juncture, a false representation was filed praying that an extent of Ac.2.02 gts., was added to the shares of respondents 4 and 5 in the aforesaid survey number. The learned counsel for petitioner has also relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Manikyamma Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar District[1]. In this case, it is to be noticed that under the scheme of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, no application can lie before the Revenue Divisional Officer, seeking correction of entries in the pahanis. Although it is the case of the petitioner that the land in Sy.No.52 was equally divided among the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, it is the specific case of respondents 4 and 5 that only an extent of Ac.4.19 gts. has fallen to the share of the petitioner in the family partition. It is also to be noticed that as per the family partition in the aforesaid survey number, mutation was effected long back in their respective names, and at no point of time, the petitioner has raised any objection. Further, it is to be noticed that in the absence of any authority of law and jurisdiction, it is not known as to how such a representation filed by the petitioner was considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer for correction of entries in the pahanis. Although the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of Manikyamma (supra), questioning the maintainability of revision before the Collector, but in the aforesaid case, it is to be noticed that the application for correction was filed before the Tahsildar, as against which, the matter was carried by way of revision before the Revenue Divisional Officer. In that context, it was held that no further revision lies before the Collector under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act. In the present case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not moved any application before the Tahsildar for correction of entries under Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act. The very order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is an order which is passed as a primary authority, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that no revision could have been maintained by the Collector in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act. As the very application filed by the petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer is wrongly entertained, I do not find any illegality in the correction ordered by the Joint Collector in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner would not render any assistance to him in support of his argument. In any event, in the absence of any valid reasons recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 2nd respondent herein, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the 1st respondent, setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th July 2011 ajr [1] 1989(1) APLJ 74