IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS.1457 AND 1522 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO : 1457 of 2008 Between: Paskanti Balaiah, S/o. Lage Dubbaiah, R/o. Domakonda Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy Division, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 3 The Tahsildar, Bhiknoor Tahsil, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. 4 Mothe Narayana Reddy, S/o. Late Mothe Mallaiah @ Mallareddy, R/o. Jangampally Village, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. 5 Puram Ashok Rao, S/o, Linga Rao, R/o. 5-6-456, Vidyanagar Colony, (Near NGOs Colony), Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad District. 6 Gandra Madhusudhan Rao, s/o. Narsinga Rao, R/o. 5-6-456, Vidyanagar Colony, (Near NGOs Colony), Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad District. 7 Jupelli Satyanarayana Rao, S/o. Muthyam Rao, R/o. 5-6-456, Vidyanagar Colony, (Near NGOs Colony), Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad District. 8 Gannamaneni Bal Kishan Rao, S/o. Ramchandar Rao, R/o. 5-6-456, Vidyanagar Colony, (Near NGOs Colony), Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.R.PRATAP REDDY Counsel for respondent No.4: MR.DURGA REDDY TIMMAYYAGAN Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 & 5 to 8: None appeared WRIT PETITION NO : 1522 of 2008 Between: Gardas Anuradha, W/o Gardas Ganga Ramulu, R/o Domakonda Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy Division, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 3 The Tahsildar, Bhiknoor Tahsil, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. 4 Mothe Narayana Reddy, s/o late Mothe Mallaiah @ Mallareddy, R/o Jangampally Village, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. 5 Puram Ashok Rao, s/o Linga Rao, 6 Gandra Madhusudhan Rao, s/o Narsinga Rao, 7 Jepelli Satyanarayana Rao, s/o Muthyam Rao, 8 Gannamaneni Bal Kishan Rao, s/o Ramchandra Rao, (Respondents 5 to 8 are residents of 5-6-456, Vidyanagar colony, (Near N.G.O's Colony,) Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.R.PRATAP REDDY Counsel for respondent No.4: MR DURGA REDDY TIMMAYYAGAN Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 & 5 to 8: None appeared The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Both the writ petitions are ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 07-11-2007 passed by respondent No.1 and the consequential order dated 26-12-2007 passed by respondent No.3. In the manner in which the writ petitions are proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to record the facts in detail. It will suﬃce to note that there is a serious dispute with regard to the question whether the alteration of revenue record in favour of the petitioners in the two writ petitions is with reference to land forming part of Acs.9.08 gts or Acs.3.02 gts in Survey No.873. It is the common case that the interest of the petitioners is conﬁned only to the land forming part of Acs.9.08 gts and respondent No.4 is entitled to Acs.3.02 gts in Survey No.873. To claim right over the land, the petitioners relied on the purported proceedings said to have been issued by the Tahsildar in the year 1989 under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”), the genuineness and existence of which is seriously disputed by respondent No.4. On the premise that the correction of entries in the revenue record was made at the instance of the petitioners in respect of Acs.3.02 gts belonging to respondent No.4, respondent No.1 has initiated suo motu proceedings and passed the impugned order. A perusal of the said order shows that the manner in which respondent No.1 dealt with the case and disposed of the suo motu revision petition leaves a lot to be desired. In the face of several disputed facts, which are referred to by respondent No.1 himself in the impugned order, he failed to deal with any of those disputed facts. By a very cryptic order, he set aside correction of entries made in the revenue records. In doing so, he has squarely relied on the report submitted by the Tahsildar. To say the least, respondent No.1 failed to discharge his statutory powers vested in him under Section 9 of the Act. The law is well settled that while exercising the quasi-judicial powers, the authorities shall not be completely guided by the reports of the subordinate oﬃcers (See the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Kilari Nagabhushana Rao vs. The Collector, Panchayat Wing, Guntur[1]). The impugned order does not suggest that respondent No.1 has veriﬁed any of the revenue records and come to the conclusion that the correction of entries in the revenue records was with reference to the extent of Acs.3.02 gts belonging to respondent No.4. In this view of the matter, the order of respondent No.1 is quashed without going into the merits of the case. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to dispose of the case afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and respondent No.4. Apart from other questions, which may be raised by the parties, respondent No.1 shall decide whether alteration of record of rights by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer was conﬁned to the land forming part of Acs.9.08 gts over which alone the petitioners have claim or it aﬀected any part of land of Acs.3.02 gts with which the petitioners are not concerned. It is needless to observe that respondent No.1 shall pass a detailed order with reference to the entries in the records. Pending the revision petition, status quo as on today shall be maintained in all respects. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petitions, WPMP No.32368 of 2008, WVMP Nos.1183 and 3098 of 2008 in W.P.No.1457 of 2008 and WPMP No.32367 of 2008 and WVMP No.1182 of 2008 in W.P.No.1522 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 13th November, 2008 vrn [1] AIR 1978 A.P 444