IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 10040 of 2008 Between: Mr. L.Narasimha Reddy S/o. Veera Reddy R/o. Bacchiguda Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector O/o. The District Collector, medak at Sangareddy. 2 The Tahsildar/ MRO, Patache Mandal, Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or a direction one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Circular of the ﬁrst respondent dated 21.12.2005 bearing No. D1/7700/2005 as illegal, contrary to the provisions Records Of Right In Land And Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 as without Jurisdiction and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.C.FRANCIS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the circular instructions issued by the ﬁrst respondent-District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy, dated 21-12-2005 to the Mandal Revenue Officers for issuance of Pattadar Pass books and title deeds in certain Mandals. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased an extent of Ac.0.06 gts in Indersham Village under registered sale deed dated 27-12-2008 and, thereafter, approached the second respondent-Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Patancheru Mandal, through application dated 31-12-2007, for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far no action was taken on the application ﬁled by him to mutate his name and on the other hand, the second respondent-Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Patancheru Mandal, directed him to secure sethwar and other relevant documents mentioned in the impugned circular. Hence the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ﬁrst respondent-District Collector, Medak, has no power or authority to issue the impugned circular instructions contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), and particularly, in view of Section 5 of the Act, it is only the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, who shall conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act on the basis of the application and on completion of such enquiry, he shall pass orders as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, issuance of impugned circular directing the petitioner to produce Sethwar, Wasoolbaqui, Khasra Pahanies etc. and other documents is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court on 01-05- 2008, the ﬁrst respondent-District Collector, Medak, has ﬁled his counter aﬃdavit stating that the circular dated 31-12- 2005 was issued taking into consideration several irregularities that have been taking place in surrounding areas due to steep hike in land value and to avert the activities of land maﬁa and to protect the Government land as well as to reduce the litigation. However, it was conceded by the ﬁrst respondent that the authority competent to amend/change entries under Section 5 of the Act is the second respondent-Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Patancheru Mandal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request, the main writ petition itself is being disposed of. It is not in dispute that as per the provisions of the Act an application has to be made to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer under Form VI(A) of the Act intimating acquisition of rights by any person and along with the said application, he has to ﬁle registered sale deed and succession certiﬁcate. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has to issue notice to the original pattadar and also interested persons and after conducting enquiry, he shall either mutate the name of the applicant or pass orders otherwise. Even though the impugned circular was issued in larger interest of the public, particularly, to protect the Government land and reduce the litigation, the ﬁrst respondent-District Collector, Medak, does not have any power to issue such a circular under the provisions of the Act and direct the applicants to produce the documents which are not in their custody. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the second respondent-Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Patancheru Mandal, to consider the application of the petitioner to mutate his name without reference to the documents sought for in the impugned circular and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ N.V.RAMANA,J Dt:02-09-2008 Usd To 1 The District Collector O/o. The District Collector, medak at Sangareddy. 2 The Tahsildar/ MRO, Patache Mandal, Medak District. 3 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4 Two CD copies.