THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.753 of 2002 Dated 27th August 2009 Between: L.Veera Narahari s/o L.Rangaiah and others …Appellants And L.Jagannadham s/o Chinna Ramana and Others …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.753 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per the Ho’nble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri Raghuveera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the respondents. The appellants are the respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition, which has been filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein, wherein they sought a Writ of Mandamus challenging the validity of the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad dated 1-3-2001 allowing an application purported to have been filed by the appellants- herein seeking for correction in regard to the entries pertaining to the extent of the lands involved in Sy.Nos.878 and 879 situated at Medchal village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The facts in brief, which gave rise to these proceedings, are that the application filed by the appellants herein under Section 87 of Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (TA) Act 1317 Fasli (for brevity ‘the Act’) seeking for correction was ordered by the District Revenue Officer on the ground that there is an error crept in regard to the extents viz., swapping of the extents Ac.8-22 gts to Ac.15-00 and vice versa, and therefore, the appellants request was acceded to. Challenging the same in the writ petition filed by the respondents 1 to 5 though several contentions were made by the appellants herein, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition on other ground that having regard to the authority as specifically mentioned under Section 87 of the Act, it is the District Collector who is the competent authority and the District Revenue Officer, the 1st respondent therein has no power, authority or jurisdiction to entertain such application. Hence, the appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that having regard to the delegation of powers to the District Revenue Officer from that of the District Collector under the provisions of the District Collectors’ Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961, it cannot be said that the District Revenue Officer has no power and therefore the order is liable to be set aside. Repelling the same, on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that having regard to the facts and circumstances absolutely there is no warrant for interference and especially in view of the serious questions of right, title and interest apart from that possession is also involved. Considering the submissions from both sides and on perusal of the material, the only point which arises ultimately for consideration is as to whether the application as has been filed by the appellants herein purportedly under Section 87 of the Land Revenue Act is maintainable and whether the District Revenue Officer is competent to entertain the same? Shorn of the facts and the details since the same is not being canvassed either way, the fact remains that there is a dispute both on title and on possession in respect of the extents as claimed by both sides. Though, according to the appellants there is swapping of the extents from Ac.8-22 gts to Ac.15-00 gts and Ac.15-00 to Ac.822 gts in Sy.No.878 and 879 and there is a denial on the part of the respondents, in view of the same and especially since both the rival parties are of the same family and these entries continued to exist all along for some time even far back these entries date to 1350 fasli onwards which is equivalent to 1940, it amply shows that in view of such consistent entries, the question of error any such under 87 of the Act does not arise, and necessarily it follows that revenue authorities are not competent to go into such aspects or give any findings unless and until both are corrected. In view of the same, we hold that irrespective of the fact whether the District Collector or the District Revenue Officer who are competent to entertain the same, it certainly transpires that the remedy of the appellants is to approach the appropriate forum for establishing the right, title and interest and in regard to the possession and obtain necessary relief. In the circumstances, we do not find any merits in the appeal. Subject to the above, the appeal is disposed of with a liberty to the appellants to avail the remedy available under law before the authorities, and the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the findings in these proceedings including that of the authorities and decide the same independently. No costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J Dt: 27-08-2009 Grk