IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10916 of 2002 Between: Bandari Narsaiah … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Nizamabad District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy Counsel for respondents 1to3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondents 5&6: Sri L. Shantaram This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10916 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 13.05.2002 passed by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, who, while setting aside order dated 09.04.2001 passed by respondent No.2, remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. Against an order of mutation made in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.3, respondent Nos.4 to 6 and some others ﬁled a representation before respondent No.1, who forwarded the same to respondent No.2 directing him to treat the same as appeal. Respondent No.2, after giving notice to the petitioner and others, allowed the purported appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner. This order was questioned in revision before the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, who, as noted above, by his order dated 13.05.2002 allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter to respondent No.3. At the hearing, Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 committed a serious error in entertaining the appeal ﬁled by respondent Nos.4 to 6 and others after more than two years of respondent No.3 passing the order. I have carefully considered this submission and I am not inclined to accept the same. Undoubtedly, under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Rules made therein, an aggrieved party has to ﬁle an appeal within thirty days from the date of decision taken by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer under Section 5(3) of the Act. However, under Section 9, the District Collector (including the Joint Collector) has jurisdiction to entertain a revision against an order of any recording authority and examine the correctness or otherwise thereof. Respondent Nos.4 to 6, who did not ﬁle an appeal, rightly approached the Joint Collector obviously invoking his revisional jurisdiction. However, the Joint Collector, without proper comprehension of the powers vested in him and the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer under the Act, referred the matter to respondent No.2 with a direction to treat the same as appeal. He has certainly committed a procedural illegality in doing so. Instead of referring the matter to respondent No.2, he himself ought to have entertained the revision and dispose of the same on merits. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that as the order passed by respondent No.2 had become the subject matter of revision before the Joint Collector, eventually he exercised his revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order of respondent No.2 and remitted the matter to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. In my considered view, the illegality earlier committed by the Joint Collector has got itself rectiﬁed with himself setting aside the order of respondent No.2. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, if the matter is remanded for fresh consideration by respondent No.3. For the abovementioned reasons, I ﬁnd no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Joint Collector. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.10.2008 ES