THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 34 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J) This Writ Appeal is filed against the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 8.3.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 4647 of 2007, which was filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 24.2.2007 in Proc.No.F1/12/2005 on the file of 1st respondent confirming the order dated 28.2.2005 passed in Proc. RC No.B1/137/2003 by the 2nd respondent as illegal and to set aside the same. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Appellant went to Arab countries. It is further stated that the 2nd petitioner also gone to Muscat in Oman in 2000 and came to know that the respondents are claiming the properties with the help of fraudulent entries in the revenue records. Subsequently 2nd petitioner filed a petition before the District Collector, Karimnagar on 28.11.2002 to forward the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar for enquiry. By an order dated 28.2.2005, the 2nd respondent rejected the application for rectification of entries in the revenue records. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that on the basis of a Certificate issued under Section 50-B of the Tenancy Act, the unofficial respondents have obtained the said Certificate basing on al registered sale deed executed by Zaheeruddin and another. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the order of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector dated 24.2.2007 confirming the orders passed by the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar dated 28.2.2005 is improper and illegal. But, however, the observations of the learned Single Judge that there is an abnormal delay of Forty (40) years, presumbaly for this reason the Joint Collector observed that in the absence of cancellation of sale deeds under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the petitioners cannot succeed in the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that there is no limitation. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has argued that the unofficial respondents are in possession of the property and even in the counter affidavit also, it is stated by the 2nd Respondent-Tahsildar that the records relating to Dis.A.No.6879, dated 25.3.1969 being old were disposed of as per the procedure and they are not available in the office for submitting the same in the Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that same may be recorded and also liberty may be granted to him. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has contended that the unofficial respondents are in possession of the properties since many years and cannot be said to be a fraudulent transaction. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellants can avail the remedies available to them under the law before any competent civil court. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of with a liberty to the appellants to avail the alternative remedies that are available to them under the law. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ___________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 16.12.2008 CHV