IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No . 23720 OF 2009 Between: Atmakuru Venkata Ramanaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, and others .....RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.23720 of 2009 ORDER: It appears the petitioner purchased land in an extent of Ac.1.66 cents in Survey Nos.64/2 and 65 of Pellakuru village from the third respondent under a registered sale deed dated 29.2.2005, and thereafter made an application for mutation of his name in revenue records and for issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds. According to the petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pellakuru after due enquiry issued pattadar pass book and title deeds in his favour on 30.01.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the representation made by the third respondent before the Joint Collector, complaining about the entry of his name in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar pass book, the Joint Collector called for report from the Revenue Divisional Officer and, thereafter, directed the second respondent to restore the name of the third respondent in respect of the subject land. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. 2. A plain reading of the impugned order would indicate that though the third respondent is the vendor and the petitioner purchased the subject land from him, the third respondent was not put on notice while mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, and in such circumstances, the entries in the name of the third respondent was directed to be restored. Thus, I am of the opinion that the Joint Collector has not committed any error in ordering restoration of the entries as available before passing the order by the Tahsildar on 30.01.2006 and the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the order passed by the first respondent will not preclude the petitioner from filing a fresh application on the basis of the sale deed purported to have been executed by third respondent on 29.2.2005, seeking alteration of entries in the revenue records. On filing such application, the Tahsilder, Pellakuru Mandal shall consider the same, after issuing notice to the third respondent as well as other concerned, and pass appropriate orders as per law. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 04.11.2009 Stp