IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17428 of 2005 Between: Maddiboina Narayana. … Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Julurupadu Mandal, Khammam District and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.Raghu. Counsel for respondents: Sri Hari Sreedhar for respondent No.4. This Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Feeling aggrieved by the change of the entry in Column No.14 of the Pahani relating to the extent of land in Survey No.1196 of Bethalapadu village, Julurupadu Mandal, Khamman District, the Writ Petition is filed. While the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before making any changes in the Record Of Rights (for short “the ROR”), it is incumbent upon the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue a notice under Section 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and that since no such notice has been given, the action of respondent No.1 is illegal; the learned counsel for respondent No.4, opposing the said contention, submitted that the change of entry made by respondent No.1 was done in the normal course of updating the ROR under Section 3(1) of the Act and that the same was not done under the provision of Section 5 of the Act. He further submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the change of entry made while updating the ROR, he has a remedy under Section 3(3) of the Act to apply for rectification of the entry before respondent No.1. A perusal of the pleadings does not show that respondent No.1 made amendment in the ROR at the instance of respondent No.4. Section 5 of the Act is attracted only when the recording authority proposes to amend in consequence of his receiving intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4 of the Act. Before such amendment is made, he shall give notice to all the persons interested in the land. However, under Section 3 respondent No.1 is charged with the duty of preparation and updating of the ROR in all lands. Under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act if any person is affected by an entry in such ROR, he is entitled to apply for rectification of the entry within a period of one year from the date of notification. Neither of the counsel is able to show whether any such Gazette is published. However, since the petitioner has a remedy of approaching respondent No.1 for altering the entry under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, I am not inclined to go into the legality or otherwise of the action of respondent No1 in altering the extent of land in Column No.14. The petitioner is permitted to make an application to respondent No.1 under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act within a period of four weeks from today and on such application being made, respondent No.1 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.4. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:04-07-2008 MNR