IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1447 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 10/09/2008 in WP NO : 19620 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Mohd. Noamaan Bader S/o. Mohd. Rizwanul Qasmi R/o. H.No.3-5-783/20, King Kothi, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector-cum-R.D.O., Ranga Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2 M/s. Darul-Uloom Sabeelus Salam, behind Salalah, Barkas, Sabeelnagar, Balapur Grampanchayat, Saroornagar Mandal, rep. by its Member of Managing Committee, Syed Azazur Rahman, S/o. Late Syed Zia-Ur-Rahman, aged 42 Yrs, Occ: Engineering, H.No.8-3-104, Plot No.137, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO :1447 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Smt. T. Meena Kumari,J) This writ appeal is directed against the order of a learned single judge of this Court made in Writ Petition No. 19620 of 2008, dated 10.9.2008. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the appellant. He filed the aforesaid writ petition before the learned single Judge questioning the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 1st respondent herein, in entertaining the appeal of the 2nd respondent filed under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,1971 (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as filed. Learned counsel for the appellant contended before the learned single Judge stating that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to make corrections in the pahani patrikas as contemplated under Section 5(5) of the Act directly without there being any proceedings made under Section 5(3) of the Act. It was further contended that since the appeal is filed after a lapse of ten years after the issuance of the pattadar pass books, the same is not maintainable. While opposing the said contentions, learned Government Pleader submitted that as per Section 5(5) of the Act, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue divisional Officer against every order of the Recording Authority either with regard to making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment. The learned single Judge having considered the rival contentions of both the sides, through the impugned order, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent herein to dispose of the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order after giving notice to all the parties concerned. Assailing the said order, the appellant filed the present writ appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the very same contentions which were urged before the learned single Judge. Admittedly, as per Section 5(5) of the Act, against every order of the Recording Authority either with regard to making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer has the power to entertain the appeal. In view of the fact that the learned single judge by the impugned order only directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to entertain the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent and dispose of the same within a time frame, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order of the learned single Judge. However, we feel it appropriate to grant three more months time to the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent. Hence, while reserving liberty to the appellant to raise all the contentions that were urged in this appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer including the question of maintainability, we dispose of the writ appeal with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 21st April, 2009 ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J pnb