IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No: 16244 of 2008 Between: 1.Shyamala Venkaiah S/o. Rajaiah R/o. Korlapahad (V) Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2.Shyamala Janaki Ramulu S/o. Venkaiah R/o. Korlapahad (V) Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nalgonda. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildhar) Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 Bejjanki Yadagiri Swamy S/o. Veeraiah R./o. Korlapahad (V) Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned appeal in No. F2/7818/2008 on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent connected records and quash the same by declaring as null and void and against to the A.P Records of Rights in Land pattedar Pass Book Act 1971 while declaring the Orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in Case No. G/3831/1996 dt. 30- 11-2007 as well as the order passed by the 3rd Respondent in R.O.R. Certiﬁcate No. 46/89 dt. 10-1-1991 are genuine and the petitioners are the rightful owners of the lands in Sy.Nos. 213 and 214 of extents of Ac 4.00 and Ac 3.00 respectively. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.LNARASIMHA RAO & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Mr.N.Ashok Kumar The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.16244 of 2008 Order: Assailing the order, dated 09.07.2008, passed by the 1st respondent, namely the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, entertaining the revision ﬁled by the 4th respondent and granting stay prohibiting the sale of suit land till the disposal of the case, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The petitioners claim that they purchased the land in question under an unregistered sale deed, dated 18.09.1980, and thereafter, their names were also mutated in the revenue records, and the 3rd respondent, namely, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District, has also issued R.O.R. Certiﬁcate on 10.01.1991. While so, the petitioners state that the 4th respondent preferred an appeal in the year 1996, and the 2nd respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nalgonda, vide orders, dated 30.11.2007, dismissed the same. Questioning the said order, the 4th respondent after lapse of seven-and-a-half moths, preferred revision before the 1st respondent, Joint Collector, who passed the impugned order, dated 09.07.2008, granting stay prohibiting the sale of the suit land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri N. Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the provision of appeal under Section 5-B was introduced in the A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) by way of A.P. Act of 1994 w.e.f., 31.10.1993, and prior to the said date, any person aggrieved by any order passed under the Act, has a remedy of ﬁling suit under Section 8(2) thereof, and as such, the order, dated 30.11.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent, dismissing the appeal ﬁled by the 4th respondent against the order, dated 10.01.1991, passed by the 3rd respondent, namely the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda, much prior to introduction of Section 5-B i.e., before 31.10.1993, having regard to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M.B. Ratnam v. Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, R.R. District, East Division at Hyderabad[1], is without jurisdiction, and as such, the order passed by the 1st respondent, entertaining revision against the said order of the 2nd respondent and passing the impugned order, is also without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners except seeking the relief of declaring the orders, dated 30.11.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent, and the order, dated 09.07.2008, passed by the 1st respondent, impugned in this writ petition, as void and without jurisdiction, are not seeking any other relief. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 as also the learned counsel for respondent No.4 did not dispute the said legal position. In view of the admitted stand taken by the learned counsel for the respective parties, and having regard to the law laid down by this Court in M.B. Ratnam v. Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, R.R. District, East Division at Hyderabad (supra), the order, dated 30.11.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent, dismissing the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent, and the order dated 09.07.2008, passed by the 1st respondent entertaining the revision ﬁled by the 4th respondent against the order of the 2nd respondent and granting stay prohibiting the sale of the suit land by reason of the impugned order, are without jurisdiction, and therefore, they are declared as null and void. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.11.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent and the order, dated 09.07.2008, passed by the 1st respondent, entertaining the revision against the order of the 2nd respondent, at the instance of the 4th respondent, and granting the stay prohibiting the sale of suit land, are set aside. The 4th respondent is at liberty to avail the remedies available to him under law. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 18.09.2008 KSR/VGB [1] 2003 (1) ALT 688 (DB)