IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10631 of 2005 Between: 1 Kondati Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao S/o.Late Srinivasa Rao R/o.Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 2 Kodati Ravindra S/o.Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao R/o.Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 2 The District Collector Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in entertaining the representations for carrying out changes in Record of rights and issuing the Form-8 notice with respondent to the land in Sy.No.184 of B.Madaram Village, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District when O.s.No.42/2005 filed by the petitioners is pending as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, ultravires unconstitutional, unjustified and unsustainable and direct the respondents to forbear from carrying out any changes in the record of Rights of Survey No.184 in b.Madaram Village, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is filed with a vaguely drafted prayer viz., for a declaration that the action of the first respondent in entertaining the representations for carrying out changes in the Record of Rights and issuing a Form-8 notice with respect to the land in survey No. 184 of B. Madaram village, Suryapet mandal, Nalgonda district when O.S.No. 42 of 2005 filed by the petitioners is pending, is illegal and unsustainable and to direct the respondents to forbear from carrying out any changes in the Record of Rights in respect of survey No. 184 of B. Madaram village, Suryapet mandal, Nalgonda district. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner’s paternal grand-father one Kodati Tirumala Rao had four sons. The eldest was Kodati Venkata Rama Rao while two others Kodati Lakshmi Narasimha Rao and Kodati Srinivasa Rao died and are survived by their family members. The first petitioner’s father is the third son by name Kodati Srinivasa Rao. In 1951 there was a partition of joint family properties whereunder the first petitioner’s father got to his share Ac.09-31 guntas in survey No. 184 of B. Madaram village. The other paternal uncles and their children got other extents of property in the same survey number. On his father’s death, the first petitioner being the only son succeeded to the extent of Ac.09-31 cents and is in exclusive ownership, possession and enjoyment of the land. There were some disputes amongst the other family members as spelt out in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition which are not relevant for the purposes of this writ petition. Some extent of land was also taken over by the State for road widening. In respect of the disputes with family members, the petitioners filed O.S.No. 42 of 2005 before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet for a permanent injunction against other members of the family and relations and obtained a temporary injunction in I.A.No. 145 of 2005 including against defendant Nos. 1 to 4 therein. According to the petitioners K. Narsimha Reddy and K. Neeraja applied to the first respondent for mutation of their names in respect of the lands purchased by them from K. Venkata Ramana, who is one of the defendants in O.S.No. 42 of 2005 and for rectification of the entries duly recording the sale transactions in their favour. On 13-04-2005 the first respondent issued a Form-8 notice. On coming to learn about this notice, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 26-04-2005 objecting to the exercise of jurisdiction by the first respondent under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights Lands and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) in view of the pendency of O.S.No. 42 of 2005. In the circumstances, the writ petition is filed stating that since the matter is pending before a competent Civil Court, the first respondent ought not to exercise jurisdiction. The issuance of Form-8 notice is in the form of a ‘show cause’ notice soliciting objections to the determination of a claim by persons seeking rectification or mutation of the revenue records and grant of pattedar passbooks and issue of title deeds. The petitioners are at liberty to object to the exercise of the first respondent on any of the grounds they desire to present. It is not though as the first respondent suffers an inherent lack of jurisdiction to even consider whether to exercise jurisdiction. There is no patent lack of jurisdiction. In the circumstances, this writ petition which is in the nature of a writ of ‘prohibition’ for preventing the initiation and threshold exercise of jurisdiction by the first respondent, is not maintainable. To seek a writ or order in the nature of ‘prohibition’, the petitioner will have to establish patent lack of jurisdiction and not merely the potential of an erroneous exercise of available jurisdiction. An erroneous exercise of jurisdiction is correctable by proceedings in the nature of Certiorari and not by prohibiting the very exercise of jurisdiction. These principles are too well settled vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmed Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233). There is another reason why the writ petition should fail. The petitioners having mentioned the names of the persons who had applied to the first respondent for rectification of records, failed to implead them as respondents to this writ petition. They are certainly persons who are aggrieved by the relief sought herein and are necessary and proper parties to this writ petition. On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any eventual order passed by the first respondent, they may pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 23-04-2008 Pvks/*