THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26485 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner and pattadar of 21 acres of land in Sy.No.323/3 of Giravelly Village, Dahegaon Mandal, Adilabad District. It is stated that, in the revenue records, the name of his father was wrongly mentioned as Venkateshwar Rao, instead of Srinivas Rao. The petitioner submitted an application before the Tahsildar, Dahegaon Mandal, the 2nd respondent herein, with a request to correct the entry. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 24-11-2008, directing that the name of the father of the petitioner be corrected as Srinivas Rao, instead of Venkateshwar Rao. The 2nd respondent passed another order dated 15-10-2009, cancelling his earlier order dated 24-11-2008. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. He contends that the impugned order was passed without notice to him, and that the same is liable to be set aside. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that, after an order dated 24-11-2008 came to be passed in favour of the petitioner, another person by name, Karamveer alias Padmaveer, S/o.Venkateshwar Rao, filed an objection petition on 31-09-2009, stating that he is the actual owner of the land, and that he gifted the same to his brother-in-law, by name, Koli Pratap Rao. Other particulars are also mentioned. Reference is made to a private complaint, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner herein, against the objection petitioner and others. Respondents take the view that, since there is a serious dispute, as to the identity of the parties, the impugned order was passed, leaving it open to the concerned persons, to work out the remedies in a Civil Court. Heard Sri Mohammed Rahail Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The entries in respect of the land in Sy.No.323/3 of Giravelly Village, were existing for the past several decades. The person in whose name the land is recorded is Y.Karamveer S/o.Venkateshwar Rao. Srinivas Rao and Venkateshwar Rao are said to be brothers. The petitioner is the son of Srinivas Rao. When the petitioner submitted an application, several decades after the original entries came to be made, the 2nd respondent examined it, and acceded to the request for correction of entries, through order dated 24-11-2008. Within a short time, another person by name, Y.Karamveer, S/o.Venkateshwar Rao, approached the respondents, taking objection to the proceedings dated 24-11-2008. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was not put on notice. The 2nd respondent has undertaken extensive examination of the record and passed the impugned order. It is mentioned that Karamveer S/o. Venkateshwar Rao, executed as many as four sale deeds between 1996 and 2004, and at present, the vendees are recorded as pattadars, for different extents of land, in that survey number. It was also mentioned that the petitioner herein was working as Village Assistant, and he was removed from service on disciplinary grounds. He is said to be different from the pattadar of the land. It is no doubt true that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice, and in the ordinary course, it is liable to be set aside. However, where the Writ issued by this Court, would have the effect of validating the otherwise illegal order, this Court would choose, not to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner did not refer to any provision of law, under which he filed the application dated 22-11-2008, for correction of the revenue records, by substituting the name of Srinivas Rao, with that of Vekateshwar Rao. It was not as if a clerical mistake has crept in, and the same is sought to be corrected. The entries with the description – ‘Y.Karamveer S/o.Venkateshwar Rao’, were existing for the past several decades; the same individual has executed sale deeds, and the transactions were taken note of in the revenue records. The persons, in whose name patta was effected, in respect of different extents of land, in Sy.No.323/3, were not put on notice, before the first order dated 24-11-2008 was passed, by the 2nd respondent. No notice was issued to the person, by name, Y.Karamveer, S/o.Venkateshwar Rao. Therefore, the order dated 24-11-2008 itself was violative of principles of natural justice. That cannot be validated by setting aside the impugned order dated 15-10-2009. Secondly, the question as to whether the petitioner is the same person, in whose favour the entries are made in the revenue records, or it is Y.Karamveer alias Padmaveer, S/o.Venkateshwar Rao, i.e. the pattadar, cannot be decided by the revenue authorities. Such disputes can be resolved only by a Civil Court, in a suit for declaration. Through the impugned order, the 2nd respondent did nothing more, than requiring the petitioner and other concerned parties to work out their remedies in a Civil court. Viewed from any angle, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, to work out his remedies; and it is made clear that, neither the order dated 24-11-2008, passed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner, nor the impugned order dated 15-10-2009, would by themselves, have any bearing on the rights of the parties, vis-à-vis the land in Sy.No.323/3 of Giravelly Village. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.18-01-2010. KO