IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6384 of 2001 Between: Sri Mohd. Mustaq Hussain & another. … Petitioners AND Syed Ismail (died) & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for respondents 3to5: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6384 of 2001 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings No.D1/627/99 dated 30.03.2001, whereby respondent No.3 purporting to exercise his power under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, directed correction of entries to be made in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is not in dispute that the revenue entries were made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1973-74 in respect of the lands in dispute. On the petition received by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Karimnagar from respondent No.1 and another person for rectiﬁcation of wrong entries, the same was forwarded to respondent No.3, who, after issuing notice to the petitioners, passed the impugned order. At the hearing, Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, apart from raising other contentions, submitted that exercise of suo moto power by respondent No.3 at the instance of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is wholly arbitrary. Having heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, I am of the view that exercise of suo moto power by respondent No.3 after about 25 years of making entries in favour of the petitioners is arbitrary. I am fortiﬁed in my view by a recent judgment of this Court dated 02.07.2008 in WP.No.20104 of 2005 and batch, wherein the learned Single Judge, on the strength of abundant authority of the Supreme Court and this Court, declared exercise of such suo moto revisional power of the authority under Section 166-B of the Act or Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 as arbitrary. Following the same, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.2 and the legal heirs of respondent No.1 from availing the common law remedies to get their title declared and seek appropriate corrections in revenue records after such declaration, subject to the objections of the limitation that may be raised by the petitioners. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.8115 of 2001 and 15886 of 2004 and WVMP.No.1338 of 2001 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.08.2008 ES