IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21124 of 2004 Between: C.Balakrishnaiah … Petitioner And The District Revenue Officer, Chittoor District and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21124 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the District Revenue Officer-respondent No.1 in rejecting the revision petitions of the petitioners vide endorsement, dated 21.10.2004, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct respondent No.2 to entertain and adjudicate the revision petitions of the petitioners, which is directed against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer-respondent No.4, in proceedings ROC.No.A/479/1997, dated 23.07.1997. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the assignee of land situated in survey No.19/6 of Avilala Village as per the assignment order received from the then Tahsildar in the year 1982. Petitioners herein approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.Nos.10325 of 1995 and batch for a direction to respondent No.4 not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the pattas based on the assignment made in their favour in the year 1982. The said writ petitions were disposed of directing respondent No.4 to conduct an enquiry and decide about the legality, validity, genuineness and effect of the assignment pattas. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in the said writ petitions, respondent No.4 passed order, dated 23.07.1997, vide proceedings in ROC.No.A/479/97, wherein he has recorded a finding that assignments claimed by the petitioners are not genuine pattas and land in question is a Cheruvuthottu poramboke, which belongs to the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.20876 of 1997 & batch and the said writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by recording a finding that in view of the factual disputes, the same cannot be decided in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directed the parties to approach the civil Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners herein carried the matter in W.A.No.1247 of 2004 and batch and a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 02.09.2004, partly allowed the appeals and granted liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer before the appropriate competent authorities in accordance with law. In view of the observations made by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ appeals, the petitioners have filed revision petitions as contemplated under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for brevity, “the Act”). The Revisional Authority by the impugned proceedings without going into the merits of the matter has rejected to entertain the revision, on the ground that as per the Record of Right rules 21(1) an appeal against every order of the Recording Authority either making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make such amendment shall lie under sub-Section (5) of Section 5 of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub- Collector/Assistant Collector or such authority as may be notified by the Commissioner and every such appeal shall be preferred within a period of 60 days. Hence this writ petition. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana that under Section 9 of the Act, the revisional authority is empowered to entertain the revision against any order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. In that view of the matter, it is not open for the revisional authority to refuse the same without examining the same on merits. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners have availed the revisional remedy in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1247 of 2004 & batch. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that inasmuch as the revision was not filed within a period of 60 days, the Revisional Authority rejected the revision. I have perused the copy of the revision petitions filed by the petitioners, which is presented in the office of the Collector of Chittoor District. Under Section 9 of the Act, the Collector is empowered 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, 5A or 5B, 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. The word ‘Collector’ is defined under Section 2(2) of the Act, which means the Collector of a District and includes a Joint Collector. The impugned endorsement is issued by the District Revenue Officer, Chittoor under the orders of the Joint Collector, who is the revisional authority. When the revision petitions are filed against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which is maintainable under Section 9 of the Act, the revisional authority ought to have entertained the appeal and consider the revision petitions on merits. Instead of the same, he has rejected the revisions without examining the claim of the petitioners on merits only on the ground that it is not against any amendment of Record of Rights under Section 5 of the Act. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners have preferred writ appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge in the earlier occasion and the said writ appeals were partly allowed permitting the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy available under law. In that view of the matter, as the revisional authority has not considered the same on merits, I set aside the endorsements made by respondent No.1 on the revision petitions filed by the petitioners, dated 21.10.2004, and direct the revisional authority to consider such revision petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 9 of the Act and pass appropriate orders on merits by giving opportunity to hear the petitioners. It is made clear that it is open to the revisional authority to consider the claim of the petitioners independently on its own merits. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J January 27, 2011 lmv