THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 2738 of 2003 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order made in Case No.D2/4/2000 dated 20.12.2002 by 1st respondent, seeking to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.10-20 guntas in Sy.No.744 of Makloor village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. According to petitioners, they have purchased land in an extent of Ac.10-20 guntas in Sy.No.744 of Makloor village and Mandal, Nizamabad District in the year 1993 and since the time of their father they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While that being so, 4th respondent, who claims to have purchased the land from his vendor Ramalingam, made a complaint to the Tahsildar saying that the names of the petitioners were entered in the revenue records erroneously and since it is a tank-bed land, the names of the petitioners could not have been recorded as pattadars and, therefore, they are liable to be corrected. It appears, the said application has been considered by 3rd respondent - Mandal Revenue Officer and the same was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, 4th respondent preferred appeal before 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer. While confirming the order passed by 3rd respondent, 2nd respondent dismissed the said appeal. Further aggrieved thereby, 4th respondent filed revision before 1st respondent – Joint Collector and the 1st respondent allowed the said revision, directing 3rd respondent to delete the names of the petitioners from the revenue records. Hence, this writ petition. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The very application filed by 4th respondent is not maintainable, since the issue as to entries in the revenue records is not the dispute between the parties. 4th respondent is not claiming the subject land at all. It is the petitioners who are claiming the said land on the ground that they have purchased the same in the year 1963 and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in their favour. It is not the case of 4th respondent that the petitioners are not the owners at all. Under those circumstances, the very application filed by 4th respondent, the appeal and the consequent revision are all misconceived. In the result, the order passed by the 1st respondent - revisional authority dated 20-12-2002 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the entries made in the revenue records prior to passing of the impugned order by 1st respondent shall continue. However, this will not preclude 4th respondent from filing an appropriate application before the District Collector for the purpose of deciding as to the area of ‘Nagaram Kunta’ of Makloor village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. If any such application is filed, the District Collector, Nizamabad shall pass appropriate orders, as per law, after hearing all the concerned. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 20-12-2010. MVB.