IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.17988, 17989 and 28450 of 2009 WP.No.17988 of 2009: BETWEEN Tirumala Reddy Sunitha and four others. ... PETITIONERS AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and four others. ...RESPONDENTS WP.No.17989 of 2009: BETWEEN Dannada Bharatamma and six others. ... PETITIONERS AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and four others. ...RESPONDENTS WP.No.28450 of 2009: BETWEEN Dannada Kistaiah. ... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR. V. VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These three writ petitions are directed against three similar orders passed by the learned Joint Collector – I, Ranga Reddy District, dated 27.06.2009 allowing three different revision petitions filed by the respondents 3 to 5 in each of these three writ petitions. The survey numbers and the extent of the land involved in each revision petition is, however, different and relate to the respective writ petitioners, who are respondents before the learned Joint Collector. Thus, all the three writ petitions are moved by different petitioners against common respondents and against identical orders of revisional authority, which has passed the impugned order dated 27.06.2009 in exercise of its powers under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). Since the orders impugned are similar and the facts also are similar, these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents 3 to 5, who are petitioners before the learned Joint Collector, are sons of one Late Raja Giridhar Raj Saxena, the original landlord. They contended that they are successor pattadars of the lands, which are subject matter of each of the three revisions. They claimed that in the Choufasla, Setwar, Khasra Pahanies and subsequent pahanies for the year 1999-2000, their names are found recorded as pattadars, but for the subsequent years, the then Mandal Revenue Officer had inserted the names of each of the writ petitioners in the place of pattadars – by including the names of respondents 3 to 9 before the Joint Collector, as pattadars and later their transferees – respondents 10 to 22 were also shown as pattadar. The revision petitioners contended that the respondents 2 to 22 before the learned Joint Collector were wrongly shown as pattadars in their place and have seriously disputed the right, title and interest of the said respondents for seeking mutation of revenue record in their favour. Thus, the revision petitioners contended that deletion of their names and insertion of names of the respondents in the revisions was contrary to the Act and the procedure prescribed under Section 5(3) of the Act was also violated. The revision petitions were allowed by the learned Joint Collector by different, but similar, orders dated 27.06.1999 and questioning the said orders, three separate writ petitions are filed. 3. Heard Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions; Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondents 3 to 5 in each of these writ petitions and learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petitioners through their predecessor in interest were in possession of the survey numbers, which are subject matter of these writ petitions, for several years disclosing their names as successors in interest in the pahanies. The entries of their names as pattadars was duly recorded by the then Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal and thereafter, series of transactions were entered into by them in favour of petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners names also are appearing in the revenue records. They also questioned the right, title and interest of the original pattadar – Raja Giridhar Raj Saxena and consequently, the rights claimed by contesting respondents 3 to 5 through their General Power of Attorney. They submitted that, admittedly, the rectification of entries by showing the names of writ petitioners was made in pahanies subsequent to the year 2000 onwards but the present revision petitions, which were filed in the year 2008 before the learned Joint Collector by the respondents 3 to 5, were clearly beyond the sixty days time prescribed under the Act and were unreasonably delayed but the learned Joint Collector ignored the same. They also contended that Section 38-E certificates were issued with respect to other lands in the very same village relating to same original pattadar and revision filed against the same was dismissed by the same Joint Collector in File No.F2/5034/2006 dated 30.08.2008. The aforesaid order was subject matter of CRP.Nos.4425 of 2008 and 2619 of 2010 and contend that the present impugned order of the learned Joint Collector is contrary to the said earlier order. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that under G.O.Ms.No.878 Revenue Department dated 16.06.1965 the entire village of Mansanpally had to be treated as Ex-Jagir village, which is abolished and vested with the Government and that the same was upheld by the learned Joint Collector in the order dated 30.08.2008, referred to above. It is also alleged by the petitioners that the impugned order was passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the writ petitioners as on 06.06.2009 when the matter was fixed for final disposal, the junior counsel requested time, as the senior counsel was abroad but the adjournment was refused and impugned order was pronounced on 27.06.2009 without reference to the reopening petition filed by their counsel on return from USA on 17.06.2009. 6. Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel, for respondents 3 to 5 submits that the learned Joint Collector had called for the records and was satisfied that the names of the predecessors of the respondents 3 to 5 as well as the respondents 3 to 5 were consistently shown in the record of rights in all the revenue records up to 1999-2000 and only thereafter that under the orders impugned before the learned Joint Collector that the said mutation was changed by deleting the names of respondents 3 to 5 and inserting with that of the writ petitioners. Learned senior counsel also submits that the Joint Collector was satisfied on examination of record that except entries as to possession there was no material to support the title claim by the petitioners and no proceedings were forthcoming to justify the mutation in their favour. The learned Joint Collector also doubted the existence of the orders of the MRO on the basis of which mutation is said to have been made and consequently, rightly allowed the revision petitions. Learned senior counsel also supports the impugned order by contending that the learned Joint Collector has followed the law declared by this Court in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. PRAMEELA MODI[1]; UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT v. VASAVI COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY[2] a n d CHINNAM PANDURANGAM v. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SERILINGAMPALLY[3] 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. A reading of the impugned order of the learned Joint Collector shows that the record of the MRO did not disclose the issuance of any notice or opportunity to respondents 3 to 5 herein before effecting mutation. The procedural requirements under Section 5(3) of the Act were found to have been violated while ordering mutation and on being satisfied with that aspect, the learned Joint Collector had set aside the said mutation. The order of the learned Joint Collector also disclosed that the alleged proceedings of regularization relied upon by the writ petitioners were not found from the record and was also satisfied that the entries of the names of the respondents 3 to 5 herein, in the revenue record, which were existing throughout up to 1999-2000 deserves to be continued. To the extent of the plea of the writ petitioners based on G.O.Ms.No.878 dated 16.06.1965 is concerned, the order of the learned Joint Collector based on the said GO was subject matter of CRP.Nos.4425 of 2008 and 2619 of 2010 and was subjudice and consequently, no finality is attached to the said order. Consequently, the learned Joint Collector ordered restoration and continuation of entries in the names of respondents 3 to 5, as existed, in all the revenue records up to 1999-2000. 8. Along with these writ petitions, the civil revision petitions, referred to above, were also heard and are being separately disposed of. In view of the separate order passed in those civil revision petitions, the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners based upon G.O.Ms.No.878 dated 16.06.1965 does not any more survive. So far as the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein were denied opportunity to participate in the final hearing of the revision petitions is concerned, I find sufficient force inasmuch as their senior counsel was said to be abroad when the revision petitions were taken up for hearing on 06.06.2009 and as soon as he came back, he is said to have filed an application for reopening on 17.06.2009 but the revision petitions were not reopened and the impugned order was passed on 27.06.2009. This specific contention raised in para 8 in the affidavit filed in support of WP.No.17988 of 2009 is not contraverted. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said ground though not specifically raised in the other two writ petitions and the matters being similar and identical and in the interest of justice, it would be just and appropriate to give an opportunity to the petitioners to make their submissions in the said revision petitions before the learned Joint Collector. 10. In that view of the matter, the impugned order in each of these writ petitions is set aside and the revision petitions are remitted to the learned Joint Collector – I, Ranga Reddy District, for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The learned Joint Collector shall afford opportunity to both sides to make their submissions on merits and shall pass fresh orders in each of the revision petitions in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 23, 2011 DSK [1] 2005 (3) ALT 379 [2] 2002 (5) ALT 370 [3] 2007 (6) ALT 134