HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.19474 of 2011 Date: July 29, 2011 Between: Syed Shabuddin Khan, S/o.Sultan Jahan Begum, aged 54 years, R/o. Bungalow No.215, Mudfort, Tokatta Village, Secunderabad … Petitioner And The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ declaring the impugned order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy in Case No.D1/4401/2006 dated 06.06.2011 insofar as the observation therein that the impleading respondents 13 to 18 are directed to approach the Tahsildar where they can raise their claims of mutation and the recording authority is directed to examine their claims and mutate the subject land strictly as per ROR Act is concerned as arbitrary, illegal, mala fide, without jurisdiction and grant such other necessary order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” Petitioner herein was the 4th respondent in the revision petition filed under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’). The said revision petition was filed by 51 individuals against 12 respondents questioning the orders of mutation passed by the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in File No.A/1343/85, dated 06.09.1985 in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.324 and 325 admeasuring Ac.216.32 guntas at Narkoda village. In the said revision petition, respondents 13 to 18 were impleaded as party-respondents, claiming purchase from respondents 1 to 12 therein. The revisional authority, by an elaborate order, disputing the claim of the petitioners therein, observed as under: “The respondents 2 to 12 have sold the subject lands to the impleading respondents 13 to 18 through various sale deeds which are being disputed by the appellants. The revenue authorities cannot set aside or cancel a sale deed and such power vests only with the civil court (Padmaja (V) Y.A.Patil, 1989 (5) KLD 352). Hence the appellants are directed to obtain relief from the civil courts. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impleading respondents 13 to 18 are directed to approach the Tahsildar where they can raise their claims of mutation and the recording authority is directed to examine their claims and mutate the subject land strictly as per ROR Act.” Respondents 4 to 9 herein were respondents 13 to 18 before the revisional authority. They claim purchase of the lands from respondents 1 to 12 in the said revision petition and they sought mutation of their names in the revenue records. In that view of the matter, the learned Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, observed that they have to approach the Tahsildar seeking grant of mutation and directed the recording authority to examine their claims of mutation and to mutate the subject land strictly as per the provisions of the Act. Consequently, when enquiry was taken up, petitioner approached this court by W.P.No.18143 of 2011 mainly on the ground that though all other affected parties were given notice, he was not given notice inviting objections on the claim of respondents 4 to 9 herein. This Court, by order dated 01.07.2011, directed the petitioner to file objections in response to notice dated 13.06.2011 and with an observation that the Tahsildar will examine such objections before taking appropriate decision on the claim of respondents 4 to 9 herein. In this writ petition, it is contended by Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned counsel for the petitioner, that as much as the civil court has granted status quo with regard to possession, it is not open to conduct enquiry for grant of mutation. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the recording authority, misconstruing the orders of the revisional authority, treated it as a remand. It is further contended that respondents 4 to 9 are claiming purchase from the G.P.A. of the petitioner, which is executed on 24.04.1992, but the same was cancelled by following due procedure by cancellation deed dated 02.02.2006; in spite of the same, the G.P.A. of the petitioner executed sale deeds in favour of respondents 4 to 9 on 28.03.2006 and the same is illegal. I have perused the order dated 06.06.2011 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. While dismissing the revision petition filed by 51 individuals and granting mutation in favour of the petitioner herein and 11 others, the Joint Collector, has merely observed that the impleaded parties can approach the Tahsildar for grant of mutation if they are seeking to mutate their names pursuant to their claim of purchase of the lands in question. The said observation is an innocuous observation and it is always open for the parties claiming mutation to approach the recording authority for mutation of names based on their claim of purchase. In any event, when a consequential notice is issued, the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court directed him to file his objections. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 01.07.2011 in W.P.No.18143 of 2011, the petitioner has filed his objections on 25.07.2011. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for the apprehension of the petitioner that his objections will not be considered before appropriate orders are passed by the competent authority. This Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the observation of the revisional authority permitting respondents 4 to 9 herein to approach the recording authority on their claim of mutation. However, as much as it is stated that objections are filed by the petitioner, I am sure that the recording authority will consider the same before appropriate orders are passed on the claim of respondents 4 to 9 herein for grant of mutation for the subject lands. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 26, 2011 MRR