IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.27068 of 1999 Between: Ganpath Rao (died) and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The Joint Collector,Nizamabad and 6 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.27068 of 1999 O R D E R: Head both the counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Madnur dated 15.01.1998 in ordering mutation of the lands in question in the name of minor Kum.Kanchana Bai, D/o.late Anantha Rao under guardianship of Grandfather Sri Ganpath Rao, the 4th respondent-Kamala Bai filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan by his order dated 26.07.1999 in Proceedings No.A2/581/98 in Case No.138 while setting aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 15.01.1998, ordered to cancel the pattedar pass book and title deed issued under the Guardianship of Ganapath Rao and further directed to issue pattadar passbook and title deed under the guardianship of 4th respondent-Kamala Bai, W/o.late Anand Rao, who is none other than the mother of Kum Kanchan Bai by rectifying the entries in all records, subject to condition that the 4th respondent-Kamala Bail shall not alienate the said land against the interests of the minor daughter Kanchan Bai. As against the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner Ganapath Rao, father’s father of minor girl Kanchan Bai filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Nizamaba and the Revisional Authority by order dated 17.11.1999 in Case No.D2/10/97, modified the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revisional Authority held that the 4th respondent-Kamala Bai is entitled to inherit the property along with miner daughter, but the possession of the property is with the petitioner herein who is father-in-law of the 4th respondent-Kamala Bail. The transfer of the said property in favour of the mother of the minor child i.e. 4th respondent-Kamala Bai is allowed, but erroneously set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is the case of the petitioners that in fact the Joint Collector upholds the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, but erroneously set aside the order in the operative portion. Admittedly, the said land belongs to the son of the petitioner, and as his son died the same will have to be succeeded by the deceased wife and the daughter. There were some disputes with regard to issue of pattader passbook and title deed. The petitioner and 4th respondent were insisting to issue pattader passbook, title deed in their favour till the minor girl attains the age of majority. Now the petitioner submits that he has no objection to issue the pattader passbook and title deed in favour of the 4th respondent as held by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad in Case.No.D2/10/97 dated 17.11.1999 is set aside and Respondents Nos.1 to 3 are directed to mutate the lands in question in favour of Kum.Kanchan Bai, the grand daughter of the petitioner and daughter of 4th respondent, as and when she attains the majority, and till then either the petitioner or the 4th respondent shall not alienate the said property. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 22.07.2010 Dsr