THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23291 of 2011 ORDER: The proceedings of the first respondent dated 07.05.2011, confirming the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar District, dated 23.05.2007, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner sold an extent of Ac.0.20 gts. of land in Sy.No.147 of Achampet Village and Mandal to Sri A.Chandra Sekhar (fourth respondent’s son) by registered sale deed No.479 dated 22.05.1980; thereafter O.S.No.132 of 1982 was filed by Smt Khairunnisa Begum (petitioner’s sister) before the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar against the petitioner and his brothers for partition and separate possession of an extent of Ac.10.18 guntas of land in Sy.No.147 situated at Achampet Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District; the said suit was transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool and renumbered as O.S.No.17 of 1987; and the learned Judge, by his order dated 02.09.1987, decreed the suit allotting 1/3rd share to the petitioner’s sister and 2/3rd share to the petitioner and his brothers. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and his brothers preferred an appeal in A.S.No.600 of 1988 which was clubbed along with A.S.No.2705 of 1997 and this Court, by order dated 10.03.1993, dismissed both the appeals confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Thereafter a final decree was passed on 23.01.1995. After the final decree was pased, the petitioner and his brothers filed an application before the Collector, Mahabubnagar for implementation of the decree. The Collector, by his letter dated 08.02.1995, directed the third respondent to implement the decree; and the third respondent, by his proceedings dated 15.04.1995, directed his subordinates to mutate the lands in the petitioner’s name except for an extent of Ac.4.00 which had already been mutated in the name of others; against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent which was allowed, by order dated 21.12.1995, directing the third respondent to mutate the petitioner’s name in respect of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.147 and Ac.0.27 guntas in Sy.No.166. The petitioner’s grievance is that no orders have been passed till date. The fourth respondent got the name of his son, Sri A.Chandra Sekhar, mutated in the revenue records for an extent of Ac.0.20 gts. in Sy.No.147 as this extent of land was purchased from the petitioner by way of registered sale deed No.479 dated 22.05.1980. The third respondent, by his proceedings dated 20.07.2003, cancelled the mutation in the name of Sri A.Chandra Sekhar in view of the final decree. Thereafter, the fourth respondent filed an application before the Collector complaining against mutation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records in respect of Ac.0.20 gts. of land. Treating the said application as an appeal the second respondent, by his order dated 23.05.2007, set aside the mutation which the petitioner claims was passed without putting him on notice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision to the Collector who, by the impugned proceedings dated 07.05.2011, confirmed the said order passed by the second respondent. In his order, passed under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), the first respondent observed that Sri A.Chandra Sekhar (son of the fourth respondent) had purchased the subject land through Registered Sale deed No. 479 dated 22.05.1980 from the petitioner; the sale document was implemented by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Achampet; title deeds had been issued in favour of the purchaser; the Mandal Revenue Officer, Achampet, had no authority to revise or cancel his own order; the second respondent, in his order dated 23.05.2007, had observed that the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Achampet had no legal sanctity; the petitioner’s contention that he had not sold the property could only be examined by the competent Civil Court; and, as such, there was no justification in interfering with the proceedings of the second respondent dated 23.05.2007. Before this Court Sri K.Mahipathi Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool (second respondent) had no jurisdiction to entertain an application since he can only entertain an appeal against the order passed by the Tahsildar, Achampet Mandal (third respondent) under the Act; though this contention was raised in the revision proceedings before the first respondent, the said contention has not been dealt with; in any event, the order could not have been passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; and, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Section 2(2) of the Act defines ‘Collector’ of a district to mean ‘Joint Collector’. Section 9 of the Act confers power on the Collector, either suo motu or on an application made to him, to call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, the Mandal Revenue Officer or the Revenue Divisional Officer, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any order. It is evident, therefore, that the first respondent has the power to suo motu revise any order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer or by the Tahsildar concerned; and entertaining the revision of the petitioner by the first respondent does not bar him from exercising suo motu powers, under Section 9 of the Act, to examine whether or not the order of the second respondent is in accordance with law. It is the case of the fourth respondent that Sri A.Chandra Sekhar had purchased the subject land from the petitioner by Registered Sale deed No. 479 dated 22.05.1980. On a query from this Court Sri K.Mahipathi Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that neither the fourth respondent nor Sri A.Chandra Sekhar were parties either to the partition suit or to the appeals preferred thereagainst. It defies reason as to how the petitioner, having himself sold the land to Sri A.Chandra Sekhar, can now turn around and place reliance upon a partition decree to contend that his name should be mutated in the revenue records as the owner of the lands, and not the person to whom he had sold the land. Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary, and a Writ is not issued as of right or as a matter of course. (C.R.Reddy Law College Employees’ Association, Eluru W.G.District vs. Bar Council of India, New Delhi[1]). The discretionary power of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, need not be exercised in every case where there is an error of law. One of the limitations imposed by this Court, on itself, is that it would not exercise jurisdiction unless substantial injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue. (Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah[2]). One of the principles inherent is that exercise of discretionary power should be for the sake of justice and, if granting relief results in greater harm, the Court may refrain from exercising the power. (State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu[3]). This Court exercises its discretionary power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with great caution and only in furtherance of public interest, and not merely on the making out of a legal point. This Court is required to keep larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, would it intervene in the matter. (Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson Pvt Ltd[4]; Air India Ltd v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.[5]) Granting the relief sought for by the petitioner would require this Court turning the blind eye to the fact that the petitioner had himself sold the land to Sri A.Chandra Sekhar (fourth respondent’s son) by Registered Sale deed No.479 dated 22.05.1980. Having sold the land by way of a registered sale deed in favour of Sri A.Chandra Sekhar (fourth respondent’s son), the petitioner, who is the vendor, cannot be heard to contend that the subsequent partition between himself and his family members would deny Sri A.Chandra Sekhar any right over the land in question. As rightly pointed out by the first respondent the remedy which the petitioner may have, even if his contention of the sale being illegal has some basis, is only to have the sale deed cancelled in appropriate civil proceedings before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. I see no reason, therefore, to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the relief sought for. The Writ Petition as filed is in gross abuse of process of Court and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) which the petitioner shall pay to the fourth respondent. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:19.08.2011 usd [1] 2004(5) ALD 180 (DB) [2] AIR 1955 SC 425 [3] (1994) 2 SCC 481 [4] (2005) 6 SCC 138 [5] (2000)2 SCC 617