THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 24506, 24525 and 28272 of 2008 Common order: M/s. Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, and the legal heirs of late Sri. Ganesh Pershad and late Sri. Jagadish Pershad, filed W.P. Nos. 24506 and 24525 of 2008 respectively, praying for the following relief: To issue an appropriate writ or order, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in R.P. No. D5/2437/2008 and D5/2437/1/2008, confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent in File No. C/3668/2006, dated 22.05.2007 and 24.03.2008 passed against dead persons, directing deletion of entries in the pahanies from 1983-84 onwards, and quash the same, as being illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. While M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited, represented by their General Power of Attorney, Dr. P.S. Prasad, filed W.P. No. 28272 of 2008, praying for the following relief: To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the order of the 1st respondent in File No.D5/2437/08, dated 18.10.2008 and consequently direct the implementation of the appellate order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, in File No. C/3668/2006, dated 22.05.2007 and further direct the revenue authority/appellate authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of mutation over the subject land admeasuring Acs. 7.09 cents in Sy. No.1 of Darga Hussain Shahwali village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, based on the orders passed in C.S. No. 14 of 1958 and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. As these three writ petitions are interconnected, and there are inter se disputes among the petitioners in the writ petitions and the unofficial respondents, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The brief facts of the case, as can culled out from the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 24506, 24525 and W.P. No. 28272 of 2008 and the counters filed therein, is that one Smt. Chandini Begum w/o. late Sri. Mohammed Khan, was the owner of land admeasuring Acs. 7.15 guntas in Sy. No. 1 of Darga Hussain Shawali, Acs. 2.14 guntas in Sy. No. 332, Ac. 0.38 guntas in Sy. No.333 of Shaikpet village and Acs. 1.13 guntas in Sy. No. 10 of Raidurga village. That she divested her title and rights over the land in favour of Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum, the fourth daughter of late Nizam V and W/o. Nawab Iqbal ud-Doulah @ Vikar Ul Umar, popularly known as lady vicar, by executing document No. 93/1217 Fasli (1907 AD) dated 13th Amarded 1317 Fasli. After the death of Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum, the land is said to have fallen to the share of her son Sri. Nawab Sultan Ul Mulk. Thereafter, the Government, in exercise of powers conferred on them by Section 53(d) of the Hyderabad Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli, vide orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 341, Revenue, dated 17.02.1959, released the property in question as Jahandar Bagh in favour of the children of late Sri. Nawab Sultan Ul-Mulk. That Jahandar Bagh is situated adjacent to Darga Hussain Shawali village. Consequent upon partition among the legal heirs of late Sri. Nawab Sultan Ul-Mulk, the property in question, vide registered document No. 1852/64, dated 22.05.1964, fell to the share of Sri. Nawab Mohammed Mistauddin Khan S/o. late Sri. Nawab M. Abdul Fateh Khan Bahadur. That the said individual sold the property in question to Sri. Suraj Bhan S/o. Sri. Budh Ram, under registered document No. 2490/1964, dated 02.09.1964. That the name of Sri. Suraj Bhan, was mutated in the revenue records, as is evident from the pahanies from 1964-65. After the death of Sri. Suraj Bhan on 12.09.1973, the names of his children Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Mahaveer Pershad were mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently, Sri. Ganesh Pershad and Sri. Jagadish Pershad died on 20.03.1987 and 15.03.1988 respectively. Subsequent to their death, the legal heirs of late Sri. Ganesh Pershad and Sri. Jagadish Pershad, namely Sri. Om Prakash, Sri. Deepak Kumar, Sri. Rajender Kumar, Sri Vikas Kumar, Sri. Mahender Kumar, Sri. Pavan Kumar, Sri. Anil Kumar, Sri. Sunil Kumar and Sri. Manish Kumar (hereinafter referred to as successors- in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan), inherited the property, and the competent authority also mutated their names in the revenue records, vide proceedings dated 10.01.1994. They having inherited the property, entered into development agreements with the petitioner in W.P. No. 24506 of 2008, for development of the land in question. While so, respondent Nos. 4 to 8, denying the claim of the petitioner, in W.P. No. 24506 of 2008 and the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, as recorded above, and claiming that Smt. Bahadurunissa Begum, is the owner of the land in question, that after her death on 24.09.1972, the property devolved upon her daughter, namely Smt. Azeezunissa Begum, and that after her death, they being her legal heirs, succeeded to the property and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act, before respondent No.2, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, against Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, seeking deletion of their names from the revenue records and incorporation of their names. Respondent No. 2, vide orders dated 22.05.2007, set the respondents therein, namely Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, ex parte, and allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, directing deletion of the names of Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, from the revenue records and incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 therein. Seeking to set aside the said ex parte order dated 22.05.2007, the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, filed petition under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. read with Section 10 of the RoR Act and Rule 28 of the Rules made thereunder, stating that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed the appeal against dead persons by mentioning their wrong addresses, and that even though their names, were mutated in the record of rights, as far back as on 10.01.1994, they were not made party-respondents in the appeal, and without making them party- respondents and without issuing any notice, they obtained the said order, and therefore, it has to be set aside. While the matters stood thus, respondent No.9, namely Sri. Nawab Mohammed Naseeruddin Khan, represented by his General Power of Attorney, Sri. Mohd. Javeed, filed application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, implead him as party- respondent in the appeal and permit him to contest the appeal. Respondent No.9, in the affidavit, filed in support of the set aside and implead application, denied that Smt. Chandini Begum, is the owner of the land in question and that she divested her title in favour of Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum. He, however, contended that Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum, is the original owner of the land in question, having purchased the same in the court auction vide letter No. 6972, dated 17 Bahman 1319 Fasli; that after her death, her son Sri. Nawab Sultan Ul-Mulk, enjoyed the property as her legal heir, that after his death, his son Sri. Nawab Farced Nawaz Jung Bahadur, enjoyed the property as its absolute owner; that after his death, his only daughter Smt. Asmathunissa Begum Saheba, became the absolute owner, and after her demise, her sons Sri. Md. Nawab Zaheeruddin Khan and Sri. Md. Nawab Naseeruddin Khan, enjoyed the property as absolute owners; that as Sri. Md. Nawab Zaheeruddin Khan died issueless, he became the absolute owner of the property in question, and that his name was also shown as defendant No. 60 in the preliminary decree passed in the civil suit. He thus got impleaded as party-respondent in the appeal proceedings before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, having entertained the applications filed by the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan and respondent No.9, issued notices to all concerned, including respondent Nos. 4 to 8, and vide orders dated 24.03.2008, dismissed the application filed by the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, stating that he has no jurisdiction to re-open the appeal proceedings and granted liberty to them to file appeals before the competent authorities. Questioning the above said orders dated 22.05.2007 and 24.03.3008, the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, filed revision, before respondent No.1, namely the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, while M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd., also filed separate revision, contending that they as defendant No. 206 in C.S. No. 14 of 1958, purchased the decretal rights in the preliminary decree from defendant No.32, namely Bahadurunissa Begum, who is the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, and as they have interest in the property in question, they are aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, and as such, entitled to question the said order. Respondent No.1, having clubbed the above two revisions, vide common order dated 18.10.2008, disposed them of by confirming the orders dated 22.05.2007 and 24.03.2008 passed by respondent No.2, and directed the parties to approach the competent civil Court and get their title dispute resolved and then approach the revenue authorities for appropriate relief. Questioning the above common order dated 18.10.2008 passed by respondent No.1, M/s. Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited filed W.P. No. 24506 of 2008, inter alia, contending that they have entered into development agreements with the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, with respect to the property in question, and that if the order passed by respondent No.1, which confirmed the order of respondent No.2, is given effect, it will affect their interest in the property, and therefore, they are entitled to question the same. While the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, questioning the very same order of respondent No.1, filed W.P. No. 24525 of 2008. While M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd., filed W.P. No. 28272 of 2008, contending that they purchased the suit schedule property from HEH NIzam, who purchased the same from the original owner, Smt. Bahadarunissa, and that respondent No.1, having confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2, ordering deletion of the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 and incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, ought not to have directed the parties to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of their title dispute, and prayed that the official respondents be directed to give effect to the order dated 22.05.2005, passed by respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 24506 of 2008 and the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, submitted that the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 before respondent No.2, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act, for correction/rectification of entries in the pahanies from the years 1983- 84 onwards, are wholly without jurisdiction, because firstly, pahanies are not record of rights, and secondly, the correction/rectification of entries in records of rights, cannot be done in an appeal filed under Section 5 of the RoR Act, but can be done only in an application filed under Section 3 of the RoR Act, and that too by the recording authority, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer. They further submitted that since the Revenue Divisional Officer, is not the recording authority, prescribed under Section 3 of the RoR Act, the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, before respondent No.2, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, for correction/rectification of entries in the pahanies, was not maintainable, and more so when pahanies are not record of rights. Hence, they contended that the orders dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2 allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.2 and ordering deletion of the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 and incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, as confirmed by respondent No.1, namely the Joint Collector, vide the impugned orders dated 18.10.2008, are wholly without jurisdiction and not maintainable in law. In support of this argument, they placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Velupadas Veeraswamy v. State of A.P.[1]. They further submitted as against the order passed by the recording authority, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal under Section 5(5) of RoR Act, would lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer, within 60 days from the date of communication of the said order, and the decision of the appellate authority thereon be subject to provisions of Section 9 of the RoR Act, shall be final. It is their contention that even though the then Mandal Revenue Officer, passed orders, mutating the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, way back on 10.01.1984 and 24.05.1985, and even though respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and 9, are aware of the said mutation orders, for the reasons best known to them, they did not file within time, but filed the appeal after lapse of 21 years and that too without any condone delay application. In support of their arguments, that appeal under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act, filed beyond period of limitation, cannot be entertained, placed reliance on the judgments of M.B. Ratnam v. Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R. District[2] and Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy v. Joint Collector, Cuddapah[3]. They further submitted that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed the appeal against dead persons by mentioning wrong addresses, and that even though the names of successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, are mutated in the record of rights, they were not made parties to the appeal, and obviously, as no notice was served on them, they could not enter their appearance to contest the matter, and in such circumstances, respondent No.2, passed ex parte orders dated 22.05.200, and such orders, the learned counsel contended, are a nullity, ab initio void and non est in the eye of law. In support of this argument, they placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Konkana Ravinder Goud v. Bhavanarishi Co-op. Housing Building Society[4]. They further submitted that respondent No.2 passed ex parte orders dated 22.05.2007 against dead persons and without personal notice to the affected parties, and in support of their contention that when an order amending the record of rights is passed, prior notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or to be affected by the amendment, should be issued, and service of notice by way of publication in news papers, is not sufficient, placed reliance on the judgments in Chatru v. Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District[5] and Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer[6]. They submitted that since respondent No.1 in the impugned order dated 18.10.2008, while confirming the order dated 22.05.2007 of respondent No.2, held that the land in question, is no longer capable of being used for agriculture, the RoR Act, having regard to the provisions of Section 2(4) thereof, is not applicable, and therefore, the appeal proceedings initiated by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, for correction/rectification of record, before respondent No. 2, are not maintainable, and as such, the order passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, are liable to be set aside. They further submitted that respondent No.2, having entertained the application to set aside the ex parte order dated 22.05.2007, and having re-opened the proceedings and having allowed the parties to file their pleadings, written documents, committed a grave error in passing orders dated 24.03.2008, holding that he had no power to re-open the appeal proceedings, and in support of their argument that even in absence of any express provision, courts will have power to set aside ex parte decree, placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner[7]. They further submitted that the orders of mutation passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, having not been challenged by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in the appeal, the entries in pahanies, as per the provisions of the RoR Act, cannot be found fault with. They thus prayed that the impugned order dated 18.10.2008, passed by respondent No. 1, confirming the orders dated 22.05.2007 passed by respondent No.2, entertaining and allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, and the orders dated 24.03.2008, passed by him, having entertained applications and refusing to re-open the appeal proceedings, be set aside, and the writ petitions be allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 28272 of 2008, namely M/s. Cyrus Investments, submitted that Smt. Bahadurunnissa Begum, is the original owner of the land in question. She as defendant No. 32 in C.S. No. 14 of 1958, sold her decretal rights in the preliminary decree in favour of HEH Nizam by executing registered sale deed dated 26.04.1964. M/s. Cyrus Investments, having purchased the property in question from HEH Nizam, got impleaded themselves as defendant No. 206 in the civil suit. He further submitted that since M/s. Cyrus Investments, purchased the property in question from the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, their name should be incorporated in the record of rights. Inasmuch as respondent No.2, allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 by order dated 22.05.2007, and directed deletion of the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 and incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, M/s. Cyrus Investments filed revision before respondent No.1, seeking to mutate their name in the record of rights. However, it is the grievance of M/s. Cyrus Investments that when the primary authority and appellate authority have exercised their power as to who is entitled to mutation, respondent No.1 committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 18,10,2008, directed the parties to approach the competent civil Court, for adjudication of their title and then approach the revenue authorities for mutation. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the official respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that as the then Mandal Revenue Officer, recorded the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, without following the procedure contemplated under the RoR Act, respondent No.2, vide orders dated 22.05.2007, has allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, and ordered deletion of the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 and incorporation of their names, and as there is title dispute in relation to the land in question, respondent No.1, vide orders dated 18.10.2008, while confirming the orders of respondent No.2, directed the parties to approach the competent civil court for resolution of their title dispute and then approach the revenue authorities, and no interference therewith is warranted by this Court. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 submitted that as the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, in collusion with the then Mandal Revenue Officer, have got their names fraudulently incorporated in the records of rights, respondent Nos. 4 to 8, immediately upon coming to know of the same, filed appeal before respondent No.2, who considering the fact that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, mutated the names of the successors-in- interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, without following the procedure prescribed by law and without issuing notice to the affected parties, set aside the mutation orders, and passed orders dated 22.05.2007, allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, and directing deletion of the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan and incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in the record of rights, which was rightly confirmed by respondent No.1, by the impugned orders dated 18.10.2008, dismissing the revisions filed by the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, and directing the parties to approach the competent civil court, for adjudication of their title etc, and no interference is called for therewith. He submitted that if at the instance of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 or any of the other petitioners, the impugned order dated 28.10.2008, passed by respondent No.1, which confirmed the order of respondent No.2, is set aside, it would amount to reviving and resurrecting an illegal and fraudulent order passed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, mutating the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, which cannot be permitted. In support of this argument that no order can be passed, if it has the effect of reviving or resurrecting an illegal order, he placed reliance on the judgments in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P.[8], Mohammad Swalleh v. III Addl. District Judge, Meerut[9], Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar[10] and and C. Sreedhar Naidu v. S.R. Niranjan[11]. In support of his argument that an order obtained by playing fraud can be set aside at any point of time, and the rule that suo motu revisional power should be exercised within a reasonable time, has no application in such a case, placed reliance on the judgment in Habeeb Yahiya v. Government of A.P.[12]. Sri. Anup Kumar Roy and Mohd. Mustafa, claiming to be GPA holders of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, vide GPA dated 22.12.2006, (hereinafter referred to as “GPA holders of respondent Nos. 4 to 8”) filed W.P.M.P. Nos. 11059 and 11517 of 2010 seeking to implead themselves as respondents in W.P. Nos. 24506 and 24525 of 2008. The learned counsel appearing on their behalf, while reiterating the petition averments submitted that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of the GPA holders, agreeing to sell the property in question for Rs.1.75 crores and that pursuant thereto, they paid an advance of Rs. 2.33 lakhs. That respondent Nos. 4 to 8 under the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, have authorized them to appear and act in all courts on their behalf, appoint Advocates and sell the property in question and execute sale deeds, and file applications before revenue authorities, for succession and corrections of records. However, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 approached the Joint Sub Registrar for cancellation of the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, by executing deed of cancellation dated 01.01.2009, but the same, having regard to the proceedings dated 25.08.2008, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, was refused registration. Questioning such action of the Joint Sub Registrar, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed writ petition in W.P. No. 1757 of 2009, but the same by orders dated 04.02.2009, was dismissed by this Court holding that GPA holders have derived right as vendees in the property. Respondent Nos. 10 and 11, who got impleaded in the writ petitions, stating that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA, Memorandum of Understanding and Supplemental Deed of Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA, in their favour, coupled with interest, submitted that respondent Nos. 4 to 8, are trying to defeat their interest, and therefore, they should be permitted to defend their interest. In support of their argument that an agent can sue on his own if he has interest in the contract, placed reliance on the judgments in Subrahmania Pattar v. Narayanan Nayar[13], Coorla Mills v. Vallabhdas[14], Firm Hardaya Mal v. Firm Kishan Gopal[15] and Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P.[16]. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 10 and 11, while reiterating the averments made by respondent Nos. 10 to 11 in the counter filed by them on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, submitted that late Sri. Suraj Bhan, is not the owner of the land in question, but Smt. Bahadurunissa Begum, is the original owner; that she died on 24.09.1972 leaving behind her daughter Smt. Azeezunissa Begum, who