THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.15068 OF 2006 24.07.2006 Between: Gore Miyan, S/o.Pasha Miyan … Petitioner AND Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.15068 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are children of one Pasha Miyan. He inherited the land in survey No.39 of Kothaguda Village in Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District from his father Jahangir Sabu. It appears, Pasha Miyan divided the property among his three children and an extent of Acs.1.14 guntas allegedly fell to the share of petitioner herein. After such partition/division, revenue authorities issued passbook under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity) duly entering the petitioner’s name in revenue records in 1978-1979. The respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal under subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Act before the first respondent in December 2005. After receiving notice of appeal, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent through a counsel and filed counter. The first respondent passed orders on 24.6.2006 ordering status quo. Against the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13643 of 2006. When the matter was taken up for consideration, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the first respondent posted the matter for final enquiry on 15.7.2006 and, therefore, the matter was adjourned. Against, when the case was called on 18.7.2006, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the first respondent passed orders on 15.7.2006 setting aside Faisal Patti of the year 1978-1979 duly remanding the matter to the second respondent. In view of this, the writ petition was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to question the order of the second respondent. Presumably for this reason, the petitioner again filed the present writ petition questioning the order of the first respondent dated 15.6.2006 whereby and whereunder the first respondent while setting aside the entry made in Faisal Patti in 1978-1979 recording the name of the petitioner, remanded the matter to second respondent with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent entertained the appeal filed by the respondents 3 and 4 ignoring the law laid down by this Court in M.B.Ratnam v Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R.District[1]. Secondly, he would submit that appeal has to be filed within a period of sixty (60) days and no appeal can be entertained by the first respondent after lapse of about twenty eight (28) years. Alternatively, he submits that when the petitioner himself is in possession of the land during the last twenty (20) years, the balance of convenience was not in favour of the contesting respondents to set aside the entry in Faisal Patti. Per contra, the learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 (caveators) submits that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner as the matter is remanded to the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) for fresh enquiry. Learned Counsel, however, does not dispute that the petitioner alone is in possession of the land all these years. The dispute raised by respondents 3 and 4 is regarding the entries made in the record of rights including Faisal Patti, which is in favour of the petitioner. The first respondent having observed that such entries were made without proper enquiry remanded the matter to the MRO. While doing so, it was not necessary to set aside the Faisal Patti entries because it has no bearing especially when the petitioner has already obtained necessary pattadar passbook and title deed under the Act. Therefore, insofar as the order of remand is concerned, no interference is called for. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to raise such contention and it is also open to the MRO to consider the question whether after lapse of about 28 years, entries in record of rights require any alternation or correction. Such a ground can be raised by the petitioner before the MRO along with all other grounds, which were raised before the first respondent. However, there is no necessity to set aside the entries in the Faisal Patti for the year 1978-1979 in 2006. Therefore, there shall be status quo as on today and the MRO, the second respondent herein, to whom the matter is remanded, is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) July 24, 2006 YS [1] 2003(1) ALT 688