THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CONTEMPT CASE No. 1221 of 2009 Dated: 23-10-2009 Oral order: Writ Petition No. 14945 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners herein, aggrieved that the 2nd and 3rd respondents were not taking action either on the direction of the 1st respondent pursuant to the petitioners’ application dated 17-1-2008 or for mutation of agricultural land of Ac.1-24 guntas in Sy.No. 375, Yellareddypeta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District in the petitioners’ favour, pursuant to their application dated 11-12-2007. By the order dated 1-5-2009, the writ petition was disposed of in the context that no counter-affidavit was filed in respect of the writ petition instituted on 10-7-2008. This Court recorded in the judgment that the petitioner had applied on 11-12-2007 for mutation of revenue records and for issue of a pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the land in question, claiming to have purchased the same from the original owner Smt Ambaripeta Laxmi w/o Pochaiah under a registered sale deed dated 24-4-2006. This Court held that on a citizen making an application for an executive service, particularly mutation, the concerned revenue official is required to take a decision expeditiously and pass orders. Procrastination is not a form of service. In the circumstances, the writ petition was allowed directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioners’ application dated 11-12-2007. The 3rd respondent in the writ petition who is the 2nd respondent herein has now passed orders in a Memo dated 18-6-2009 stating that according to the revenue records Smt Ambaripet Laxmi, the vendor of the land to the petitioners is not the title holder of the land in Sy.No.375, Yellareddipet Village and therefore, the request for mutation of the land cannot be considered. Sri Rama Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners asserts in reiteration of the pleadings that Ambaripet Laxmi was the owner and possessor of the land and while purchasing the land from the said Laxmi, the petitioners had verified the records like passbooks as well as title deeds which were issued in favour of the vendor under the ROR Act and therefore, the Memo issued by the respondents holding that the petitioners’ vendor Laxmi is not the title holder of the land in Sy.No.375, is incorrect, is mala fide and a casual and negligent decision by the 2nd respondent, in a contumacious disregard of the orders of this Court in the writ petition No. 14945 of 2008. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the 1971 Act’), against any order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer rejecting the application of a claimant for mutation in the revenue records, an appeal lies under Section 5-B. There is also available a remedy of revision under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, to the Collector. At any rate, the entries made in the revenue records even pursuant to the orders of the Executive or Quasi-judicial authorities under the provisions of the 1971 Act do not constitute proof of title to the property. This is the settled position. The remedy by way of a civil suit by way of a declaratory relief is also an available remedy. In the context of a plurality of the remedies available to the petitioners including against the order of the 2nd respondent, this Court is not inclined to treat the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent in the Memo dated 18-6-2009 as contumacious disregard of the orders of this Court. It is also contended by Sri Rama Rao that earlier the same respondent in the Memo dated 26-10-2007 had endorsed that no action is being taken to amend the entries made in revenue records in respect of land in Sy.No.375, Yellareddypet under the provisions of the 1971 Act or the 1989 Rules thereunder. This endorsement, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners establishes that Smt Ambaripet Laxmi is the title holder of the property in question which was later conveyed in favour of the petitioners under a registered sale deed. This contention on behalf of the petitioners does not commend acceptance by this Court. The Memo dated 26-10-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent does not suggest that Smt Ambaripet Laxmi was the earlier title holder of the property. The endorsement merely states that the revenue entries are not being altered. Who is the recorded holder of the land in Sy.No.375 does not appear from this Memo of the 2nd respondent. In any event the authorities conferred with jurisdiction to decide the matter may come to a wrong or right conclusion in exercise of their jurisdiction. Any erroneous order in exercise of jurisdiction is amenable to appropriate appellate or revisional remedies. In the case on hand, the remedy is by way of an appeal or a revision or even by way of a writ petition challenging the order, if appropriate reasons exist justifying non-availment of an alternative remedy. A quasi-criminal coercion by way of contempt proceedings ought not to be employed to direct particular exercise of a discretionary power. For the aforesaid reasons, the contempt case is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 18-6-2009. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 23rd October, 2009 GRR