THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.20119 OF 2011 19th July 2011. BETWEEN: MIRZA AZHARULLA BAIG .. PETITIONER AND THE TAHSILDAR, VARGAL MANDAL, MEDAK DISTRICT AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.20119 OF 2011 O R D E R : This writ petition has been instituted by one Mirza Azharulla Baig, S/o Late Mirza Ameer Baig questioning the orders passed by the 1st respondent- Tahsildar, Vargal Mandal, Medak District in mutating the name of 2nd respondent-Smt.Dataru Indira Bai in the revenue records relating to land of an extent of Ac.2.36 guntas situated in Sy.No.947 of Pamulaparthi village of Vargal Mandal, Medak District. Sri.O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue (TA). Sri.O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that it is fundamental on the part of the Tahsildar, the competent authority, to serve a notice of hearing and provide an opportunity to all the interested persons in the land before orders of correction/amendment or mutation with regard to the entries in the revenue records are ordered. In the instant case no such notice was issued and no such opportunity was accorded, notwithstanding that the name of the petitioner’s father and others are clearly recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that if an order is passed by any quasi-judicial authority in violation of principles of natural justice, such orders are bound to be declared as void and hence he submits that the present impugned order be declared as void and inoperative. The impugned order discloses that notice in Form VIII is issued on 17.9.2009 and finding that it has not evoked the necessary response, the impugned order has been passed some time in March, 2010 ordering for correction of entries in the revenue record. Sec.5 (3) of The Rights in Pass Land and Pattedar Books Andhra Pradesh Act, 1971 makes it clear that the recording authority shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of right under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of the said section shall issue a notice in writing to all the persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within a period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. Rule 19 of the Rules framed under the said Act has prescribed that the notice referred to in Sec.5 (3) of the said Act shall be served in Form VIII appended to the said Rules. When Form VIII is perused the position becomes amply clear that the competent authority is bound to fill up the column with regard to the persons to whom the said notice is intended to be served upon. Otherwise the notice becomes an empty formality. It is, therefore, abundantly clear to me that Form VIII is a comprehensive one which requires the competent recording authority to fill up therein the names of persons who have subsisting interest in the land as per the revenue records. As can be seen from the revenue record, in this case, names of certain persons are already available, therefore without looking at Form VIII it is not possible for one to convincingly record a finding of fact that no notice has been served by the recording authority. Since, the impugned order refers to the notice in Form VIII, dated 17.9.2009, for the present, I infer that such a notice obviously has been issued. Under section 5(5) of the said Act an appeal against the orders of the competent authority would lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. Thereafter, under section 9 of the said Act a further revision is also provided to the Collector, both the appellate authority and the revisional authorities are vested with wide powers to not only summon the records of the competent recording authority and verify it as to whether the requirement for Section 3 or Section 5 of the said Act has been faithfully complied with or not. If the recording authority has failed to comply with the said requirement of the statute, as a matter of fact, then the appellate authority has got the power to set aside the proceedings of the recording authority and remand the matter back. Therefore, the controversy raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is heavily dependent upon ascertainment of the fact as to whether the notice in Form VIII dated 17.9.2009 said to have been issued by the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Vargal has in fact been addressed to the petitioner herein or other interested persons or not and whether such a notice has been actually delivered or not. Normally, when a statute provides for an appeal and revisional powers, the writ court as a matter of self imposed discipline would be slow to interfere with the orders of the primary authority. It is all the more so if a fact is required to be established on record. In these set of circumstances, I consider it that the present case is a fit case for agitating the matter before the appellate authority rather than this court entertaining the said writ petition. Since the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not aware for want of notice of the impugned order it is only appropriate that he must be provided 30 days time from today in approaching the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned by filing the appeal. If the writ petitioner approaches the Revenue Divisional Officer by preferring an appeal within 30 days from today the same be entertained on merits instead of rejecting it on the ground that it has been preferred beyond the 30 days period of time from the date on which the 1st respondent has passed the order. With this the writ petition stands disposed of. Dt: 19-07-2011. ( NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO, J ) Cc three days. tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.20119 OF 2011 19TH July 2011.