THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2317 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner purchased two separate extents of land in Survey Nos.23 (Ac.0.35 guntas) and 24/E (Acs.2.20 guntas) of Kesaram Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The first extent was purchased from one Sri R.Ramaiah and the second from three individuals, by name Gundlapally Yadagiri, Gundlapally Bikshapathi and Gundlapally Narasimhulu, who are all the sons of Gundlapally Narayana. She submitted an application to the Tahsildar, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent herein, with a request to record her name in respect of the lands. Complaining that the second respondent did not take necessary steps, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.11512 of 2007. The writ petition was disposed of on 06.07.2007, directing the second respondent to take necessary action. It was in this context that the second respondent issued a Memo, dated 28.07.2007, rejecting the application of the petitioner, on the ground that the names of her vendors figured only as occupants and not as pattadars. The petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the first respondent herein, under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land & Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. The revision was rejected on 20.12.2008. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner has been making efforts to get her name mutated in the revenue records vis-à-vis the land in Survey Nos.23 and 24/E over an extent of Acs.0.35 guntas and Acs.2.20 guntas respectively. The second respondent rejected the application of the petitioner through Memo, dated 28.07.2007. The reasons mentioned in the Memo are that in respect of the land in Survey No.23, one Sri Raja Malla Reddy is recorded as pattadar and for Survey No.24/E, one Sri Gulam Samdani is mentioned as pattadar. The vendors of the petitioner are said to have been recorded as possessors. Viewed in isolation, the reason furnished by the second respondent may appear to be acceptable. However, it is not uncommon that even possessors acquire transferable title with the consent of the pattadars. In case the recorded pattadar does not have any objection for the transfer of the land by the occupant, there must not be any plausible objection for the recording authority to effect mutations. The only requirement is that a notice needs to be issued to the persons, who are recorded as pattadars. If they object for mutation, the applicant has to be required to work out his remedies by filing a suit, as provided for under Section 8(2) of the Act. On the other hand, if they did not express any objection, the request can be acceded to. Respondents 1 and 2 did not examine the matter from this angle. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The second respondent is directed to issue notice to the persons who are recorded as pattadars for the lands in Survey Nos.23 and 24/E of Kesaram Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as well as the vendors of the petitioners. In case, no objections are received from the pattadars, the request of the petitioner shall be acceded to. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:10.02.2009 kdl