IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1417 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20.04.2005 in WP NO. 14891 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Chenchu Bal Reddy and another ..... APPELLANTS AND The Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, 177, Khairtabad, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2005 made in WP No.14891 of 2004 by a learned Single Judge upholding the correction of entries in the revenue records viz., pahani and faisal patti for the year 1977-1978 and setting aside the observation of the first respondent herein with regard to the title in his proceedings No.D/7503/96 dated 27.3.2004, the writ petitioners are in appeal. The appellants herein who were respondents 7 and 8 before the Joint Collector in an application filed by the respondents 3 and 4 to correct the entries in the pahani and Faisal Patti for the year 1977-78 on the ground that they were unauthorizedly tampered with by the Patwari, filed the above writ petition aggrieved by the favourable order passed by the first respondent herein in Case No. D5/7503/1996 dated 27.3.2004. The case of the writ petitioners – appellants before the learned Single Judge is that since the respondents 3 and 4 filed the petition after decades of the alleged correction of entries alleged to be made in 1977-78, under the repealed Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli, the first respondent ought not to have allowed the same. It is further their case that since copy of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, basing on which the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 27.3.2004, had not been furnished to the appellants, the order is liable to be set aside more particularly in view of the fact he has no right to decide or advert to the question of title. Whereas, the case of the respondents 3 and 4 before the learned Single Judge was that since the correction of entries was fraudulently made, they can be corrected at any time after discovery of such fraud and there is no limitation for exercising the power to rectify the records brought into existence by playing fraud. It is their further case that the name Mallayya is changed to Pullayya apart from tampering certain other entries. The court below on extensive consideration of the issue, has observed that non-furnishing of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer to the appellants is not of any consequence inasmuch as the first respondent can even suo motu order deletion of the tampered entries in the revenue records. It is further observed that it was unnecessary for the first respondent to go into the question of title for passing orders in the petition filed by the respondents 3 and 4 and making observation with regard to the title, which needs to be set aside. Therefore, the learned Single Judge while upholding the order passed by the first respondent insofar as it relates to the correction of entries in the revenue records i.e. pahani and faisal patti for the year 1977-78, the observations with regard to the title are set aside. Aggrieved thereby the writ petitioners are in appeal before us. It is a settled principle of law that the entries made in the revenue records do not confer title. However, the first respondent is perfectly right in correcting the entries alleged to have been made by the patwari, without there being any record or order from competent authority. But he has no authority to enter into the arena of deciding title of the subject property. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that a civil suit OS No. 603 of 1995 filed for declaration of title and partition is pending adjudication on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy. Therefore, without further delving on the issue, we feel suffice to direct the learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy, to dispose of the suit OS No. 603 of 1995 as expeditious as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is needless to add that the learned Senior Civil Judge shall dispose of the suit on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge. We further direct that the parties to the suit shall not alienate, create any third party rights, or alter the nature of the subject matter of the property in this writ appeal. With this direction, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar November 13, 2009 MAS.