THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.700 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the son of the 4th respondent. His father viz., Papaiah died about ten years ago. Papaiah held Ac.8.86 cents of land in different survey numbers of Mugachintala Village. Soon after the death of Papaiah, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Kondepi, 3rd respondent herein with a request to issue pattadar pass book and title deeds in his name for the entire land. On a report submitted by the Revenue Secretary, the 3rd respondent issued pattadar pass book in favour of the petitioner. The 4th respondent approached the Joint Collector, Prakasam District, 1st respondent herein with a representation. He took the matter as a suo motu revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, called for report and issued notice to the petitioner. On finding that the 4th respondent was denied her share in the property and that the pass book and title deeds were issued contrary to law, he passed an order dated 16.11.2009 directing cancellation of pattadar pass book issued to the petitioner. A further direction was issued to the Tahsildar to make necessary entries in respect of the land in accordance with law. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent deserted his father and the entire family long back and taking note of the same, the Tahsildar issued pattadar pass book and title deeds to the petitioner in respect of the entire land. He further contends that in case, the 4th respondent felt aggrieved, the only alternative for her was to file a suit either for partition or for declaration and that the impugned proceedings are untenable in law. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue on the other hand submits that the 1st respondent is conferred with the power of revision either suo motu or at the instance of an aggrieved party and that the impugned order was passed following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner does not dispute the relationship between himself and the 4th respondent. Papaiah died leaving behind him his wife-4th respondent, son-petitioner and a daughter. He held Ac.8.86 cents of land. Unless a different arrangement in accordance with law was provided for, the mutation in the revenue records ought to have taken place strictly in accordance with the law of succession. Being a Class-I heir of late Papaiah, the 4th respondent was entitled for a share on par with the petitioner. Either by suppressing the relevant facts or by misleading the authorities, the petitioner got pattadar pass book and title deeds in respect of the entire land exclusively for himself. Even now, the petitioner is not able to state as to how he alone is entitled to the entire property. The 1st respondent not only issued notice to the petitioner and considered his explanation but also has examined the record. Cogent reasons were furnished in support of the conclusions arrived at by him. It can be said that the 1st respondent has passed an order in exercise of his jurisdiction in a perfect manner. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 22.01.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.700 of 2010 Date: 22.01.2010 JSU