IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17930 of 2004 Between: 1 Siddeshuni Ravi Kumar, S/o Samba Siddaiah, R/o H.No.6-3-157, Brahmanawada, Hanamkonda, Warangal 2 Siddeshuni Madhu Kumar, S/o Samba Siddaiah, R/o H.No.6-3-157, Brahmanawada, Hanamkonda, Warangal 3 Siddeshuni Suresh Kumar, S/o Samba Siddaiah, R/o H.No.6-3-157, Brahamanwada, Hanmkonda, Warangal ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal Division, Warangal District 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanamkonda Mandal, Hanamkonda, Warangal District 3 Sri Banoth Kelva Naik, S/o Hoba Naik, R/o H.No.1-7-90, Ekasila Colony, Hunter Road, Warangal District 4 Sri Banoth Shankar Naik, S/o Kevla Naik, R/o H.No.1-7-90, Ekasila Colony, Hunter Road, Warangal District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.A1/2683/2004, dated 16-09-2004 passed by the 1st respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing appropriate Writ of Mandamus or a direction. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:1. AGP FOR REVENUE (for R1 & R2) 2.MR.SRINIVASA REDDY & MR.C.V.MOHAN REDDY (for R3 & R4) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17930 of 2004 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the main writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside the proceedings, dated 16.09.2004, passed by respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether respondent No.1 was competent to treat a representation said to have been made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 as an appeal under Section 5-B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) and decide the validity or otherwise of the order, dated 29.07.2000, passed by respondent No.2 while exercising his statutory powers under the provisions of the Act. Under Section 5-B of the Act, an appeal shall lie against an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A, to the Revenue Divisional Officer within thirty days of the date of communication of the order and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall, after due enquiry pass such order on the appeal as he deems fit. Admittedly, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not filed such an appeal, but they claim to have made a representation in the year 2004 to set aside the order, dated 29.07.2000, passed by respondent No.2. In my considered view, if respondent Nos.3 and 4 were aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, they were entitled to file a statutory appeal under the above mentioned provision. In the absence of such an appeal having been filed, respondent No.1 has no power and jurisdiction to issue notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4 in order to upset the order passed by respondent No.2, because he does not have a suo motu power inhered in him to examine the validity or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.2, except in an appeal filed by the aggrieved party in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, if any, made there under. Since no such appeal was filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the impugned notice cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. This order, however, does not preclude respondent Nos.3 and 4 from exercising their right of appeal under Section 5-B of the Act. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J) 9th June, 2008 v v To 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal Division, Warangal District 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanamkonda Mandal, Hanamkonda, Warangal District 3 2CCs to 4 2CD copies