IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14766 of 2008 Between: Ramesh Chander Agarwal S/o.Late Kanyalal Agarwal R/o.H.No.1-1-181, Old Kothagudem, Kothagudem Town, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District. 2 The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha , Khammam District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR GOLI RAMAKRISHNA FOR MR.MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not passing orders on representation dated 11-06-2008 submitted by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider his representation in accordance with law. The petitioner claims that since the time of his forefathers, the property admeasuring Acs.19.01 guntas in Survey No.475 of Seetharama Patnam, H/o Paloncha Revenue Village, Khammam District has been owned by his family, that when one Nallamalla Sheshaiah was trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the said land, he filed O.S.No.67 of 1992 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and that the said suit was decreed on 22-09-1998. He further stated that the said Sheshaiah filed A.S. No.20 of 2002 before the II-Additional District Judge (FTC-I), Khammam and that the said appeal was dismissed on 28-09-2005. It is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant in the suit, namely; Sheshaiah tampered with the revenue records and managed to get his name entered by deleting the name of the petitioner and that the petitioner made several representations to respondent No.1 to amend the revenue record. He stated that latest representation made by him was on 11-06-2008 and so far no action has been taken thereon. Heard Sri Goli Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. Under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), it is the duty of respondent No.1 to prepare record of rights and bring up to date, from time to time, the said record containing the names of all persons who are owners, pattadars, mortgagees, occupants or tenants of lands and the nature and extent of the respective rights or interest of such persons and the conditions or liabilities if any, attaching thereto. Under sub- section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, any person affected by an entry in such record of rights may, within one year from the date of notification issued under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, apply for rectification of the entry. Under Section 5 of the Act, on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right, respondent No.1 shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended. The petitioner categorically asserted that he got a decree in his favour in respect of the land in question and he has been persistently making representations to respondent No.1 to amend the record of rights. If what the petitioner claims is correct, I see no justification in respondent No.1 in not taking appropriate action for correction of record of rights in pursuance of the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the petitioner’s representation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law, after giving necessary notice to the petitioner and to Nallamalla Sheshaiah. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.19084 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 10th July, 2008 vrn