THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.5679 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to Case No.D5/7566/2001 dated 7.9.2004 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to enter the names of petitioners in the revenue records in respect of lands in Survey Nos.68 to 107, 363, 372 to 419/1 and 2 total admeasuring 396 Acres situated at Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Ranga Reddy district for the years 1955-56 till date. Petitioners are 28 in number and they are represented by their General Power of Attorney holder. According to the petitioners, agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 68 to 107, 363, 372 to 419/1 and 2 total admeasuring 396 Acres situated at Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Ranga Reddy district are their ancestral property and they have jointly inherited the same. Originally, one Mudupu Venkat Rama Rao was the Muntakabdar vide Muntakab No.1122 and subsequently the same was confirmed and ratified vide Muntakab No.1163. Thereafter, succession was ordered in favour of Paramkush Rao, Ranga Rao and Narasimha Rao respectively in respect of above lands with ratio of 0-8-0 anna, 0-4-0 anna and 0-4-0 anna by the then Tahsildar in the year 1958 in File No.29/58 of 1943 F as decided by Sarfekhas Mubarak. Petitioners 9 to 28 are the legal heirs of late Paramkush Rao and the petitioners 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of late Ranga Rao and petitioners 6 to 8 are the legal heirs of Narasimha Rao. All of them being governed by Hindu Mithakshara School and coparceners jointly inherited and succeeded over the above said lands. According to the petitioners, the father of unofficial respondents by name Mohd.Karam Ali Khan had taken the aforesaid lands on lease under a registered lease deed with effect from 20th Meher 1348 F and subsequently the said lease was neither renewed nor extended. After expiry of the lease, petitioners father of respective branches have taken possession and their names were continued in the revenue records as pattedars and possessors upto 1953-54 and they used to pay land revenue to the Government. But the said Mohd.Karam Ali Khan, father of unofficial respondents, without the knowledge of petitioners or their ancestors, got his name entered in the revenue records from 1954-55 onwards without any legal proceedings or without transfer of patta and the same is continued till date. Though the said Mohd. Karam Ali Khan died long back, his name has been continuing in the revenue records till date and the names of his legal heirs i.e. unofficial respondents have not been reflected in the revenue records. Some part of the land in Sy.Nos.406, 407 and 409 was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Market Yard and APSRTC Bus Depot and the reference matters are pending before the District Court, Ranga Reddy district. Questioning the entries made in the revenue records and the name of Karam Ali Khan, petitioners filed revision before the first respondent under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971 for correction of entries in the revenue records by deleting the name of late Mohd.Karam Ali Khan, father of unofficial respondents and incorporating the names of original Muntakabdar in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.68 to 107, 363, 372 to 419/1 and 2 total admeasuring 396 Acres situated at Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Ranga Reddy district from the years 1955-56 to till date. The first respondent by his order dated 7.9.2004 dismissed the said revision holding that the petitioners have filed the revision after lapse of 46 years. Hence this writ petition. Respondents 3 to 8 filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioners and asserted that though initially their late father has taken the subject land on a permanent lease under a registered lease deed, but subsequently with the consent of Muntakabdars, his name was entered as possessor and pattedar in Columns 13 and 14 of Kasra Pahani and subsequently in Sesla Pahani for the years 1955-56 and 1957-58 and his name was entered as pattedar and possessor in Column No.11 of Pahani pathrika. As a matter of fact, the name of their father has been recorded as possessor and pattedar by the revenue authorities from the year 1953-54 onwards basing on valid and legal documents and factual ground realities. According to the learned counsel for respondents, the rights of ownership over the subject land was settled more than 50 years back, which cannot be unsettled at this length of time. To support his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment in VALLABHDAS PALLOD(DIED) AND OTHERS v. NAGAR PANCHAYAT (MUNICIPAL COUNCIL), ZAHEERABAD AND OTHERS[1] and submitted that the petitioners ought to have approached the authorities for redressal of their grievance within a reasonable time. He further contended that the first respondent rightly passed the impugned order, which needs no interference by this Court. Having heard both sides and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have raked up the issue after a lapse of more than 50 years. They ought to have approached the authorities within a reasonable time. It is only a speculative litigation, therefore I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the first respondent does not suffer from any legal infirmities. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 17.7.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.5679 of 2005 17.7.2009 [1] 2009(4) ALD 129 (DB)