THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13565 of 2002 DATE: 02.02.2010 Between: Humayun Begum …Petitioner and The District Collector, Ranga Reddy and another …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR MR. E.SESHAGIRI RAO COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: AGP FOR REVENUE THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13565 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of Acs.15.00 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.201 (part) of Sahabnagar Kalan, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri E.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the above-mentioned property through alleged succession from Salarjung family. She made an application for mutation of the properties before respondent No.2, who in turn addressed letter, dated 15.06.1999 to respondent No.1 to issue necessary instructions for taking further action in the matter. As no further action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), if a person acquires any right over the property, he is entitled to approach the recording authority for correction of entries in the record of rights. Under Section 5 of the Act, if the recording authority is satisfied about acquisition of such right, he shall make necessary amendments to the record of rights after holding enquiry. Respondent No.2 is the recording authority under the Act. The Act therefore, does not countenance taking instructions from the superior authority, namely, respondent No.1, who is the revisional authority under Section 9 of the Act. Respondent No.2 ought to have acted independently on the basis of the material placed by the petitioner for mutation. By addressing a letter to respondent No.1 and awaiting instructions from him, respondent No.2 abdicated his statutory functions. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Act and take appropriate decision after holding necessary enquiry as envisaged under the said provision. He shall complete this exercise within a period of three (3) months from today. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd FEBRUARY, 2010. kvni