THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.12503 of 2006 (Dated : 09.08.2010) Between: G.R.K.Suryanarayana Raju and others …Petitioners A n d Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.12503 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are six in number, challenging the order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District-1st respondent in File No.C/1731/2005. 2. Ramaiah was the owner of Acs.25.36 guntas in Survey No.372 of Shamshabad village. Balaiah was one of his sons. Ramaiah and Balaiah executed registered sale deed in respect of Ac.5-00 guntas and Ac.3-00 guntas in Survey No.372 in favour of Hariram, vide registered sale deed bearing Document No.813/65 and 921/66.Hariram executed a sale deed bearing No.1690/82 in favour of petitioner No.1-G.R.K.Suryanarayana Raju and Smt. M.Janaki in respect of Ac.8-00. Prakash executed registered sale deed in respect of Ac.7-19 guntas in favour of G.Ramakrishnam Raju and Dr. K.Srinivasa Raju. In turn, Dr. K.Srinivasa Raju executed registered sale deed No.1691/82 for Ac.3-29 ½ guntas in favour of petitioner No.4-M.Rajam Raju and petitioner No.6-Smt. B.H.Renuka Devi and whereas Dr. K.Srinivasa Raju executed registered sale deed dated 9.9.1984 in respect of Ac.3-29 ½ guntas in favour of petitioner No.3-Smt. B.H.Raghavamma and petitioner No.5-B.H.Narayana Raju. The petitioner No.1 and others submitted an application on 13.6.1986 for rectification of entries in the revenue records. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal issued notice in Form No.8 under A.P.Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’) calling for objections from the interested parties. Chakali Balaiah submitted objection petition on 19.9.1986. He contended before the Mandal Revenue Officer that patta in respect of Ac.15-00 in Survey No.372 stands in his name and he has been cultivating the land since 30 years and in his absence his father disposed of the land forging his signature. The Mandal Revenue Officer conducted enquiry and found the objections raised by Chakali Blaiah were not valid, and accordingly, ordered for change of names in the revenue records in favour of the petitioners, by order dated 19.5.1987 in File No.A2/2340/86. In the year 2004, Chakali Pochamma W/o Balaiah-third respondent submitted an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad seeking cancellation of the entries in the revenue records in respect of Ac.9-36 guntas in Survey No.372. She claimed in the petition that her husband Chakali Balaiah got Ac.9-36 guntas in partition with his brothers. When the Mandal Revenue Officer did not take any action on her application, she approached the Special Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella-1st respondent, by way of an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer entertained the appeal petition of Chakali Pochamma and ordered notice to the opposite parties. After hearing the parties, the Special Grade Deputy Collector-1st respondent set aside the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad in A2/2340/86 dated 19.5.1987 to the extent of Ac.5-00 in Survey No.372 of Shamshabad village and remanded the matter back to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad for de nova enquiry, by order dated 31.5.2006. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella-1st respondent in exercise of powers under Section 5(5) of the Act reads as hereunder:- “ Examined the case and verified the records and documents filed by both parties. Heard the arguments advanced by both Appellant and Respondent called the lower Court records. But the same is not traced out and M.R.O issued a Memo stating that the file is not traceable, vide Memo No.C/846/05, Dated 23.06.2005. It is further observed that the suit land bearing Sy.No.372 admeasuring Ac.15.18 gts., situated at Shamshabad Vg. And Mandal originally recorded patta in the name of Sri Chakali Ramaiah and Mallaiah during his life time he has orally partitioned the property allotting Ac.9.36 guntas to Sri Chakali Balaiah being eldest son and remaining land to other sons. The appellant has raised objection stating that the Mandal Revenue Officer has passed orders to the Extent of Ac.25.36 gts., including the share of the appellant (succeeded from her Father-in- law late Ramaiah to Chakali Balaiah the husband of the appellant) and who has also filed application for mutation and the same is pending with the M.R.O ., Shamshabad. Further the Xerox copy of orders passed by the M.R.O in file No.A2/2340/86, Dated 19-5-1987 has also been verified one Sri Chakali Balaiah husband of the appellant has filed objection petition on 19-9-1986 in which the M.R.O has discussed the objection raised by Sri Balaiah and disposed of the same and ordered to effect changes through Registered Sale Deed No.920/66 to an extent of Ac.7.10 gts., 813/65 for Ac.5.00 gts. and 921/66 for Ac..00 gts, total admeasuring Ac.15.19 guts., to Sri Hari Ram and Prakash Bajaj in turn they have disposed of the land in favour of Ramakrishna Bajaj, Sreenivasa Raju and G.R.K.Suryanarayana Raju who in turn sold to G.R.K.S.Raju and Janaki vide Registered Sale Deed No.1690/82 Extent Ac.8.00 gts., Narayana Raju Extent Ac.1.35 guts., Raghavamma Extent Ac.1.35 gts., Doct. No.6522/84 Rajam Raju Extent Ac.1.34 gts., Renuka Devi Ac.1.34 gts., Doct. No.6508/84, Dated 7-11-84, Ramakrishna Raju Doct.No.1619/82, Extent Ac.7.19 gts. It is further revealed that Sri Ramaiah & Mallaih have executed different sale deeds where Ramaiah got Ac.5.00 gts., and Mallaiah got Ac.10.18 gts. of land in Survey No.372 of Shamshabad Vg. But they have not executed individual sale deeds and the lower Court file also not available for verification in Sy.No.372 of Shamshabad Village thus there is a discrepancy in sale deeds. In view of the above findings, the orders passed by the M.R.O., Shamshabad, vide Procgs.No.A2/2340/86, dated 19-5-1987 to the extent of Ac.5.00 gts., in sy.No.372 of Shamshabad Vg. And Mandal held in the name of Chakali Ramaiah is set aside and remanded back to M.R.O., Shamshabad for de-nova enquiry, duly giving opportunity to all the concerned parties within a period of (3) months. “ Hence, this writ petition assailing the order dated 31.5.2006 in File No.C/1731/2005 on the file of the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District-1st respondent. 3. The principal ground urged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that entertaining the appeal by the appellate authority-1st respondent after more than 16 years itself is in excess of jurisdiction not vested in him by the Act, and therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition is to be held without jurisdiction. The other ground urged is that the husband of the third respondent was served with notices in the mutation enquiry in the year 1986-87 and he suffered the order, but he did not chose to question the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer during his life time and in which case it is impermissible for his wife-third respondent to re-agitate the same issue before the Mandal Revenue Officer by making an application for correction of entries in the revenue records. 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 14.7.2006. The 3rd respondent entered appearance and filed W.V.M.P.No.734 of 2007 with a prayer to vacate the interim order. 5. It is stated in the counter affidavit that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if de nova enquiry was conducted. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that neither her husband nor the legal heirs of the original pattadar Chakali Ramaiah were made parties to the proceedings in A2/2340/86and that the petitioners fabricated the documents and got their names mutated in the revenue records as pattadars. 6. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel appearing for 3rd respondent. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that very entertaining the appeal by the 1st respondent after lapse of 16 years is beyond his jurisdiction, and therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be quashed. A further submission has been made that the husband of the 3rd respondent appeared before the Mandal Revenue Officer during enquiry in the year 1986 and raised objection and the M.R.O found the objection raised by the husband of the 3rd respondent as not valid and accordingly, ordered for rectification of revenue entries and in which case, it is impermissible for the 3rd respondent to contend that the petitioners played fraud in getting the revenue records rectified. He would also contend that the transactions are evidenced by the registered sale deed and if the 3rd respondent wants to question the registered sale deeds, he has to take recourse by approaching competent civil Curt and not by making an application to the revenue authorities for cancellation of the entries in the revenue records. 8. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioners obtained order with regard to rectification of entries in the revenue records by playing fraud and in which case, the 1st respondent is justified in setting aside the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and remitting the matter back for de nova enquiry. He would also submit that the M.R.O has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder inasmuch as no notice was given to the interested persons during the enquiry conducted by the M.R.O with regard to change of entries in the records of rights. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [1] and judgment of this Court in P.Shyam Rao V. State[2], Habeeb Yahiya v. Government of A.P[3] Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District[4] and Kola Satya Rao v. Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District[5]. 9. In Chengalvaraya Naidu’s case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. In P.Shyam Rao’s case (2nd supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that where no innocent third party interests have crept in and where the nature of fraud or misrepresentation is so glaring and patent carrying out for judicial correction and where the assignee himself was a privy to the fraud played on the State, it becomes the duty of the authority to take action immediately the fraud is detected and discovered. In Habeeb Yahiya’s case (3rd supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court quoted the judgment in P.Shyam Rao V. State ( 2nd supra) with approval. In Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer (4 supra), a Full Bench of this Court has observed that before amending Record of Rights, Recording Authority shall issue notice in writing individually to all persons whose names are entered in Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by proposed amendment besides publishing notice in Form VIII. In Kola Satya Rao (5 supra), a learned Single Judge of this court has held that generally, the power of revision is conferred on a superior authority, which is vested with the supervisory jurisdiction, to keep the officers subordinate to it within their bounds and exercise jurisdiction vested in them properly while discharging their quasi judicial functions. 10. There is no quarrel with regard to the proposition of law laid down in the above-referred decisions. The question is whether the 1st respondent exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal petition of the 3rd respondent and setting aside the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer? 11. As can be seen from the order impugned in the writ petition, the petitioners approached the Mandal Revenue Officer in the year 1986 basing on the registered sale deeds for effecting changes in the revenue records. The husband of the 3rd respondent is one of the executants of the sale deeds. From 1986 to 2004, neither the 3rd respondent nor her husband raised any objection with regard to the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 19.5.1987. As a matter of fact, the husband of the 3rd respondent did not question the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer despite the fact that the M.R.O overruled his objection and proceeded to effect changes in the revenue records. The 3rd respondent instead of challenging the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer makes another application before the M.R.O in the year 2004. As there was no action on the part of the M.R.O on her application, she submitted an appeal petition before the 1st respondent. Thereupon, the 1st respondent entertained the appeal petition as one under Section 5(5) of the Act and proceeded to set aside the order passed by the M.R.O on 19.5.1987. Under sub- section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, appeal against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall be subject to the provisios of Section 9, be final. 12. It is evident from subsection (5) of Section 5 that appeal has to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the order. It is not the grievance of the 3rd respondent that the order was not communicated to her husband during his lifetime. Indeed, the 3rd respondent did not chose to challenge the order dated 19.5.1987 passed by the M.R.O by filing an appeal as provided under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act. What is questioned by her before the 1st respondent is inaction of the Mandal Revenue Officer in entertaining her application for cancellation of the entries. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the 1st respondent exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal presented by the 3rd respondent and in setting aside the orders dated 19.5.1987 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. 13. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed quashing the order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the 1st respondent-Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District in File No.C/1731/2005. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.09-08-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.12503 of 2006 DATED : 09-08-2010 [1] AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 853 [2] 1984(2) ALT 386 [3] 2003(5) ALD 215 [4] 2007(6) ALT 134(F.B) [5] 2010(3) ALT 281