THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.867 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st petitioner claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Acs.6.77 cents in survey Nos.109/7, 8, 9 and 10 of Ampapuram Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. The 2nd petitioner is said to be the owner of land admeasuring Acs.2.40 cents, in survey Nos.109/2 and 11 of the same village. They submitted applications, on 29.01.2009, to the Tahsildar, Bapulapadu Mandal, the 4th respondent, with a request to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds. Complaining that no action has been taken thereon, they filed W.P.No.9197 of 2009. The writ petition was disposed of, on 30.04.2009, directing the 4th respondent to take necessary steps, in accordance with the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the ROR Act”) and the Rules made thereunder, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The 4th respondent made an endorsement, dated 02.01.2010, referring to various proceedings, in relation to the land, and declining issuance of pattadar pass books, on the ground that a suo motu revision, under Section 4-B of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”) is under consideration, before the District Collector, 1st respondent. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the endorsement. Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the proceedings, dated 30.08.2008, under the Act, were initiated against the petitioners, and they ended up with the orders, passed by the Joint Collector, in their favour. He contends that the Act does not provide for any suo motu revision, once the order passed in further appeal has become final. Learned Government Pleader for Assignments, on the other hand, submits that the District Collector is vested with the supervisory powers, and that after satisfying himself about the nature of the claim made by the petitioners, proceedings were initiated. He contends that the petitioners would be provided with an opportunity to defend themselves. The petitioners have been making efforts to obtain pattadar pass books and title deeds, in respect of their land. The ROR Act and the Rules made thereunder provide for issuance of pattadar pass books and prescribe the procedure therefor. The petitioners submitted their applications, way back in January, 2009. When that was not acted upon, they had to approach this Court. It is only when a direction was issued by this Court, that the 4th respondent moved in the order, and issued the impugned endorsement. The endorsement makes reference to various proceedings, that were initiated against the petitioners, under the Act. Alleging that the transfer of the land was made in favour of the petitioners in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Tahsildar issued a show cause notice under Section 4 of the Act. An order was passed on 12.05.2007, by the 4th respondent, directing resumption of the land. Appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuziveedu, the 3rd respondent, was dismissed, on 08.02.2008. Thereupon, they filed further appeal before the 2nd respondent, as provided for under Section 4-A(2) of the Act. The appeal was allowed by holding that the transfer of the assigned land took place long ago, and that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are untenable. That order has assumed finality. The 4th respondent made reference to the proposals said to have been initiated by the District Collector, vide letter, dated 21.11.2009 before the Government for entertaining a suo motu revision under Section 4-B of the Act. The Act does not provide for any suo motu revision. At the most, a writ petition could have been filed by the Department, in case they felt that the order passed by the 2nd respondent suffered from any legal or factual infirmity. At any rate, there was no order of stay granted by any authority. The 4th respondent cannot abdicate his functions under the ROR Act, on the basis of the proceedings, which are unrelated to the exercise of power under that Act. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned endorsement is set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to take necessary steps, without reference to any facts, that are mentioned in the impugned endorsement, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25.01.2010. GJ