THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6922 of 2010 26.3.2010 Between: Thalla Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o.late Veera Reddy …Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6922 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.5.19 guntas in survey No.247 and Acs.11.07 guntas in survey No.304 situated at Pudur Village of Medchal Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. He entered into an agreement of sale with M/s.Narne Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad (NEPL) in respect of the said property. He also executed a general power of attorney in favour of the vendee. It appears that NEPL in turn sold the property to fifth respondent. On an application made by them, fourth respondent passed orders on 04.3.2005 altering record of rights in favour of fifth respondent. Petitioner then filed application before the fourth respondent to recall the said order. By proceedings dated 06.6.2005, fourth respondent recalled earlier order. Aggrieved by the same, fifth respondent preferred appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity) before the third respondent. By order dated 17.9.2007, appellate authority set aside the order of fourth respondent on the ground that he had no such competence and jurisdiction to recall the order once passed. Petitioner then carried the matter by way of revision under Section 9 of the Act before the second respondent. The same having been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.2.2010 present writ petition is filed. The counsel for petitioner made submissions to the following effect. The appellate authority failed to give notice and, therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. He secondly contends that the impugned order passed by the second respondent does not contain reasons and, therefore, it is unsustainable. Thirdly, it is his submission that when the fourth respondent recalled the order on the ground of fraud it calls for no interference. This Court considered the submissions and thoroughly perused the order passed by the original authority, appellate authority and revisional authority. Indisputably, the Act or Rules made thereunder do not confer any power of review on fourth respondent. Therefore, he ought not to have recalled the order passed earlier in favour of fifth respondent. Secondly admittedly the petitioner as well as fifth respondent filed suits which are pending on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, and on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and, therefore, the matters before Revenue authorities must rest there. Be it noted that under Section 8(2) of the Act, all the revenue entries shall always be subject to the decree that may be passed by the Civil Court. Therefore, liberty is given to petitioner to raise all the grounds including ground of fraud in the suits pending. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ March 26, 2010. (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS