THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.27550 of 2010 DT.08.11.2010 Between: Bashek … Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.J.C.Francis Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 5: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a prohibition against respondent No.5 to restrain him from proceeding with the revision petition filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4. I have heard Sri J.C.Francis, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner claims that he was granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC), in pursuance of which, Tahsildar, Patacheuru has altered the entries in the record of rights in his favour. Questioning the said alteration, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have approached respondent No.5 by way of a revision petition. Respondent No.5 in turn has entertained the same and issued notice of hearing, which is impugned in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the entries in the record of rights were altered in pursuance of the ORC granted in favour of his client, no revision petition lies before respondent No.5. After carefully considering this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to accept the same. Irrespective of source of right a person may have acquired, the entries in ROR are altered under the provisions of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). While alteration of entries is traceable to Section 3 or Section 5 of the Act, as the case may be, the same is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of respondent No.5 under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.5 inherently lacks jurisdiction in entertaining the revision petition filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the dispute over the property is hanging fire for several years, respondent No.5 may be directed to dispose of the revision petition expeditiously. Having regard to this submission, respondent No.5 is directed to dispose of the revision petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35172 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 08.11.2010. VGB