THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.24049 OF 2011 ORDER: The order of the Joint Collector dated 30.06.2011, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 17.02.2009 reversing the order of the Tahsildar dated 16.02.2004, is under challenge in this Writ Petition as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (A.P. Act 26 of 1971). At the stage of admission itself, Sri R. Ashok, Learned Counsel for the fourth respondent - caveator, filed his affidavit in opposition and, at the request of Counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. While both the parties would question each others title over the land of an extent of Ac.15-09 guntas in Survey No.144 of Kondurg (West) Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, it would suffice for the purpose of this Writ Petition merely to note that the petitioner herein submitted an application to the Tahsildar seeking correction of the record of rights contending that he had purchased the properties from his vendors; the Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 16.02.2004, corrected the record of rights and entered the name of the petitioner as a pattadar; thereafter the fourth respondent made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 03.01.2005 who, by his order dated 17.02.2009, allowed the petition and directed the Tahsildar, Kondurg to implement the registered document bearing No.3195/2001 dated 06.06.2001 in favour of Sri V.T. Prakash (the fourth respondent); the Tahsildar, Kondurg Mandal vide proceedings dated 20.05.2009, implemented the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 17.02.2009, and carried out amendment of the record of rights. The petitioner herein preferred a Revision Petition, under Section 9 of A.P. Act 26 of 1971, to the first respondent contending that the Revenue Divisional Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the application filed by the fourth respondent; the Revenue Divisional Officer was merely an appellate authority, and not the original authority, under A.P. Act 26 of 1971; while he had the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the orders passed by the third respondent, he could not himself entertain applications for correction of the record of rights; and the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was without putting the petitioner on notice and without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It is not in dispute that the authority competent to correct entries in the record of rights is the Tahsildar and not the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the power conferred on the latter under Section 5(5) of A.P. Act 26 of 1971 is to entertain an appeal against the order of the recording authority. Even otherwise Section 5(3) of A.P. Act 26 of 1971 requires the recording authority, before carrying out any amendment to the record of rights under Section 5(1) and (2) of A.P. Act 26 of 1971, to issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights; thereafter consider every objection made in this regard; and pass an order after making such enquiry as is prescribed. Admittedly, by the date on which the Revenue Divisional Officer had passed an order i.e., on 17.02.2009, the petitioner’s name had already been mutated in the revenue records and, as such, he was required not only to be put on notice but also to be given an opportunity of being heard. The jurisdiction which the Collector exercises under Section 9 of A.P. Act 26 of 1971, either suo motu or on an application made to him, is to call for and examine the record of any recording authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer, and satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof. The said provision enables the Collector to modify, annul or reverse any such proceedings or remit the matter for re-consideration. Section 9 of A.P. Act 26 of 1971 does not empower the Collector to substitute himself either for the recording authority under Section 5(3) of the A.P. Act 26 of 1971 or for the appellate authority under Section 5(5) of A.P. Act 26 of 1971. An opportunity of hearing being afforded by the first respondent is not sufficient compliance with the requirement of the Rules. Non- compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 5(3) cannot be cured by the first respondent by providing an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. The submissions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this requirement under Section 5(3) of the A.P. Act 26 of 1971 would arise only if prejudice is shown to have been caused; and, even otherwise, the said provision must be read as being directory and not mandatory; cannot, however, be brushed aside. These contentions may well have necessitated further examination, but Counsel on either side submit that, instead of keeping the Writ Petition pending, it would suffice if the original authority (the third respondent) is directed to entertain the application to be submitted by the fourth respondent for correction of the record of rights; give all the parties, (the petitioner, others whose names find place in the record of rights and the fourth respondent), an opportunity of being heard; and thereafter pass an order afresh in accordance with law. In the light of the submissions aforementioned, the fourth respondent is permitted to submit an application seeking correction of the entries in the record of rights within ten days from today. The third respondent shall, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application submitted by the fourth respondent, put the petitioner, others whose names have been entered in the record of rights, and the fourth respondent on notice, give them an opportunity of being heard, and pass orders afresh thereafter in accordance with law. The impugned order of the Joint Collector dated 30.06.2011, and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 17.02.2009, are set aside. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J August 30, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. by 03.09.2011. B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.24049 OF 2011 August 30, 2011 MD