IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :16550 of 2005 Between: 1 Vadla Laxmaiah S/o. Sri Lingaiah R/o.Vadla Veedhi Kamareddy Nizamabad Dist. 2 Vadla Ravi S/o. Sri Narahari R/o.Vadla Veedhi Kamareddy Nizamabad Dist. 3 Vadla Prabhakar S/o. Gangaiah R/o.Vadla Veedhi Kamareddy Nizamabad Dist. 4 Vadla Chinna Narsimloo S/o.Sri Narayana R/o.Vadla Veedhi Kamareddy Nizamabad Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nizamabad 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 3 College Education Society, K.P.Raja Reddy Estates, Vadloor Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, Rep. by its Secretary Sri K.P.Raja Reddy S/o.Sri Raja Reddy Aged about 70 yrs. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR. K.DEVENDER FOR MR. K.RAGHUVEER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of certiorari to quash order, dated 19.03.2005 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K.Devender, learned counsel representing Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record. The dispute pertains to the land of an extent of Acs.8.26 guntas comprised in Survey No.782 of Kamareddy Village, Nizamabad District. While from the years 1954-55, the said land stood in the names of the predecessors – family members of the petitioners, for the ﬁrst time in the year 1977-78, the name of respondent No.3 was found incorporated in the Record of Rights. The petitioners approached respondent No.1 by way of revision petition under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the 1971 Act’). By order, dated 19.03.2005, respondent No.1 rejected the said revision petition mainly on two grounds, namely, the 1971 Act applies only to the agricultural lands and that the lands exclusively used for non-agricultural purposes are excluded from the deﬁnition of “land” under Section 2(4) of the said Act. The other ground on which he rejected the revision was that while the mutation took place in favour of respondent No.3 between 01.06.1977 and 31.05.1978, the 1971 Act came into force from 15.08.1978 and, therefore, he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as regards the ﬁrst ground, namely, the provisions of the 1971 Act have no application and consequently, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction, he urged that even though the said reasoning is correct, under Section 15(2) of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation 1358 Fasli (for short ‘the 1358 Fasli’), respondent No.1 has a similar power of revision as is vested in him under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. With regard to the second ground, namely, the property in question does not satisfy the description of “land”, there was no material whatsoever before respondent No.1 to arrive at the said conclusion. He submitted that the nature of the land is not converted into one for non- agricultural purpose and, therefore, the said ﬁnding has no basis. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 sought to support the order of respondent No.1. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel. In his order, respondent No.1 has not referred to or discussed any material in support of his ﬁnding that the land in question ceased to be an agricultural land and was exclusively used for non-agricultural purpose. Unless the parties adduce evidence in this regard, such a finding arrived at by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained. With respect to the purported lack of jurisdiction of respondent No.1, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners that a provision identical to Section 9 of the 1971 Act is available in Section 15(2) of the 1358 Fasli. If the cause of action as held by respondent No.1 had arisen prior to the coming into force of the 1971 Act, an aggrieved party cannot be rendered remediless. The Act, which was in existence at the time when the cause of action had arisen, shall apply, if the 1971 Act has no application. In this view of the matter, rejection of revision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is not sustainable. On the premises mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to consider the revision petition under Section 15(2) of the 1358 Fasli and decide the case on merits after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and respondent No.3. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni