THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26084 of 2010 Date:22.10.2010 Between: Pentareddy Pratap Reddy @ Vijaya Pratap Reddy and another ..... Petitioners AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.M.V.Suresh Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in Rc.No.A/3936/2008, dated 27.09.2010 of respondent No.1 by issuing a writ of Certiorari. At the hearing, Mr. M.V.Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, made valiant efforts to convince this Court that the remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) is not an efficacious one. Section 9 of the Act reads as under: “9. Revision:- The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly:- Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation” The language in Section 9 of the Act reproduced above clearly indicates that the revisional authority is vested with the power to examine the regularity, correctness or legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made by the recording authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B of the Act. He is also empowered to modify, annul or reverse the orders passed by the subordinate authorities or remand the matter for reconsideration. Therefore, the amplitude of the power of the revisional authority is very wide and there is no basis for the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said remedy is not efficacious one. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition when the petitioners have effective alternative remedy. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioners to avail the abovementioned remedy. The Registry shall return the original copy of proceedings dated 27.09.2010 of respondent No.1 on the petitioners making appropriate application. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33312 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd October, 2010 GHN