IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25081 of 2005 Between: Sri Vanguru Balaiah … Petitioner AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Jagadishwara Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25081 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 18.08.2005 issued by respondent No.1. Heard Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the record. No one appeared for respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner ﬁled an application under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) for mutation of his name in the record of rights in respect of Ac.3.10 guntas of land in Sy.No.187 of Nemargomula Village, based on registered sale deed dated 04.10.2000 executed in his favour by Md. Enayath Khan and two others. A similar claim was made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 before respondent No.1. The said applications were considered and disposed of by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The said order is questioned in this writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 addressed letter dated 24.04.2005 seeking clariﬁcation from respondent No.2 as to the persons in whose favour mutation has to be effected. In response thereto, respondent No.2 gave clariﬁcation on 02.08.2005, wherein he opined that the mutation has to be eﬀected in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Following the said opinion, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. Under the provisions of the Act, when an application under Section 4 is made, respondent No.1 shall hold an enquiry and pass an appropriate order under Section 5(3) of the Act. Respondent No.1 is thus entrusted with the quasi-judicial function of determining the rights of the parties as to the mutation of their names in the revenue record over the land. It is therefore obligatory on the part of respondent No.1 to act independently without being guided by external agency. Indeed, under Section 5(5), respondent No.2, who is the appellate authority, is entitled to consider the correctness or otherwise of the decision taken by respondent No.1 under Section 5(3) of the Act. It is therefore not permissible for respondent No.1 to seek intervention of respondent No.2 and to be guided by him in the decision making process. I am fortiﬁed this view of mine by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in K. Siddaiah Naidu vs. District Collector, Chittoor and others[1]. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to consider and decide the case afresh strictly in accordance with law, without being inﬂuenced by the opinion of respondent No.2 or any other superior officer. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.10.2008 ES [1] 2003 (6) ALD (NOC) 127