IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27746 of 2008 Between: 1 Bollaboina Rajamallaiah S/o. Nagaiah R/o. Bommaram Village H/o. Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District. 2 Bollaboina Tirupathi S/o. Rajamallaiah R/o. Bommaram Village H/o. Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District. 3 Bollaboina Durgaiah S/o. Narsaiah R/o. Bommaram Village H/o. Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District. 4 Bollaboina Ramulu S/o. arsaiaha R/o. Bommaram Village H/o. Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Medak Division, at Medak 3 The Tahsildar, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District. 4 Mallela yadaiah S/o. Narsaiah R/o. Bommaram H/o. Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District. .....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 to issue a writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedilngs of the 1st respondent in File No. F3/2608/05-F3/38/ROR/05 dt. 30-10-2008 on the file of the Joint Collector confirming the Order in File No.l E/3495/03 dt. 24-1-2005 on the file of the 2nd respondent as illegal, void and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.C.R.PRATAP REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.27746 of 2008 ORDER: Four petitioners in the instant writ petition assail the order dated 30.10.2008 of first respondent whereby and whereunder revision petition filed by petitioners under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity) was dismissed confirming order of second respondent dated 24.1.2005. The case of petitioners is as follows. Land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas in surey No.934/3 situated at Masaipet village of Yeldurthy Mandal in Medak District, is allegedly owned by Bollaboina Nagaiah, who had three sons, namely, Narsaiah (immediate predecessor of petitioners 3 and 4), Raja Mallaiah (first petitioner) and Narayana. Fourth respondent is son-in-law of Narayana. Be that as it is, petitioners allege that three sons of Nagaiah partitioned land and obtained Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds (PPBs/TDs). It is alleged that fourth respondent subsequently got an extent of Acs.2.26 guntas in survey No.934, and tried to tamper revenue records. When he tried to interfere with petitioners, who are allegedly in possession of 2/3rd share, they resisted. Fourth respondent then filed injunction suit being O.S.No.61 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Medak, which was dismissed on 11.3.2008. When the suit was pending, fourth respondent also preferred appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before second respondent to delete names of petitioners from possessors’ column in pahanis for the year 2002-2003 and subsequent years. By order dated 24.1.2005, second respondent directed third respondent to delete names of petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners unsuccessfully filed revision petition before first respondent. Learned Counsel for petitioners made three submissions. These are: Decree of civil Court in O.S.No.61 of 2003 is binding on authorities under the Act and they cannot take contrary stand ignoring findings of civil Court. The Act does not confer power on second respondent to suo motu entertain an application for alteration/amendment of entries in record of rights. Petitioners were granted PPBs/TDs and they cannot be cancelled by Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). Lastly, it is submitted that Joint Collector has not given any reasons in support of order of dismissal. The submission that second respondent cannot suo motu entertain application is misconceived. A perusal of the order of RDO would show that fourth respondent filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act and having come to the conclusion that the Government assigned ceiling surplus land in survey No.934/3 (Acs.2.22 guntas) of Masaipet village of Yeldurthy Mandal, to fourth respondent, that petitioners were also granted pattas for ceiling surplus land for which they obtained separate PPBs and that entry of their names in respect of land assigned to fourth respondent is not correct, second respondent directed third respondent to delete the names. It is not exercised suo motu and it was made on appeal filed by fourth respondent. When entries in revenue records are altered and correspondingly PPBs/TDs are issued, it is always open to appellate authority to order deletion of wrong entries and cancel PPBs/TDs. It is well settled that power to do something under statute also includes power to undo such thing. The submission that authorities under the Act cannot ignore judgment of civil Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is misconceived. Fourth respondent filed injunction suit in which important issue is whether he was in possession of property or not. A perusal of judgment of the Court of Junior Civil Judge in O.S.No.61 of 2003 dated 11.3.2008 would show that when the suit was tried, appeal filed by fourth respondent was pending, and therefore, trial Court recorded finding that possession alleged by fourth respondent cannot be believed. The said finding does not in any manner affect the power of authorities under the Act to rectify wrong entries in record of rights. The submission that first respondent did not give reasons is devoid of any merit. While dismissing revision, first respondent observed as under. The RDO, Medak, in the impugned orders has observed that ceiling surplus land was assigned to the respondent herein under A.P.L.R.(COAH) Act, 1973. It is also observed that the respondent herein was also issued the PPB bearing No.282563, Khatha No.1080, by MRO, Yeldurthy, for the above land. It is further observed that as per the condition laid down in the proceedings, the land shall not be alienated, gifted or transferred in any other manner and as such the land assigned to an individual cannot be claimed by any others. Moreover it is also observed that the revision petitioners herein were also issued pattas under ceiling surplus land and pattadar passbooks were also issued to them in Sy.No.933 and 934 as under. 1. B.Rajamallaiah Revision Petitioner No.1 Sy.No.933 0.37½ Sy.No.934 0.37 2. B.Durgaiah Revision Petitioner No.3 Sy.No.933 0.19 Sy.No.934 0.19 3. B.Ramulu Revision Petitioner No.4 Sy.No.933 0.19 Sy.No.934 0.19 Further the RDO also observed that the respondents before him failed to produce any documentary evidence that they have got land partitioned. Further as contended the respondent herein belongs to “Mallela” family and the revision petitioners belongs to “Bollaboina” family and as such the land assigned to the respondent cannot be claimed by the revision petitioners herein. In view of the above position I see no reason to interfere with the orders of RDO, Medak, passed in file No.E/3495/03, dt.24.1.2005, and the same are upheld. In the result the revision petition is dismissed. This Court is convinced that order of Joint Collector is supported by reasons based on record and submission of learned Counsel is without substance. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) December 22, 2008. YS To 1 The Joint Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Medak Division, at Medak 3 The Tahsildar, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District. 4 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5 Two C.D. Copies.