IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO : 66 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/10/2003 in WP NO : 10189 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Mada Venkatesham, S/o. Sailoo, Ogade Village, Nakrekkal Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Dandempalli Lakshmaiah, S/o. Sailoo, R/o. Tekkellapahad Village, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 Dandempalli Yadaiah, S/o. Lakshmaiah, R/o. Tekkellapahad Village, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 D. Yellamma, W/o. Gangaiah, Bhairavanibanda Village, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 The Joint Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaligowraram, Nalgonda District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.T.RAGHUNATH, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. M. Venkatram Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos 4 &5 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court Made the Following Order: (Per BRSR.J) This Writ Appeal arises out of the order dated 29.10.2003 made in W.P.No.10189 of 2003 dated 29.10.2003 by a learned Single Judge of this Court setting aside the impugned order dated 8.5.2003 passed by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda directing the Mandal Revenue Officer,Shaligowraram to cancel the mutation under Section 9 of the A.P.Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of the lands in question granted in the name of the unofficial respondents herein. That it is unnecessary to notice the facts in detail as they have been succinctly noticed by the learned Single Judge. The fact remains that the Joint Collector, Nalgonda District exercised his suo motu powers under Section 9 of the Act on an application being made by the appellant herein questioning the entries made in the record of rights for the year 1978-79 incorporating the names of the respondents in the records of rights. The application itself has been filed almost 25 years after the said mutation. The mutation had taken place as early as in the year 1978-79 and remained in operation for a period of more than 25 years. The learned single Judge relying upon the judgment of the Supreme court in IBRAHIMPATNAM TALUK VYAVASAYA COOLIE SANGAM Vs. K.SURESH REDDY held that there did not exist any basis for the Joint Collector to exercise suo motu powers after a lapse of 25 years, that is to say, after mutation was effected in favour of the respondents. We find no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.T.Raghunath however submitted that the unofficial respondents herein got their names incorporated in the record of rights by perpetrating fraud and therefore those entries can be corrected by the Joint Collector at any time by exercising the suo motu powers. Mere allegation of fraud will not be enough. There is no categorical finding as such by the Joint Collector that the whole of the action initiated by the unofficial respondents herein to get their names incorporated in the record of rights is vitiated by fraud. It is under those circumstances, the learned Single Judge left the remedy of the appellant open. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that the questions relating to rights in immovable properties can never be resolved satisfactorily in a summary proceeding and the remedy is civil suit. The learned Single Judge observed that it will be open to the appellant to get his rights established in a properly constituted civil suit. The learned counsel for the appellant however contended that Section 8 of the Act bars filing of suits and therefore the only remedy available to the appellant is by way of invoking the jurisdiction of the revisional authority under Section 9 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act merely bars suits against Government or its officers in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to any entry made in any record of right or to have any such entry omitted or amended. Suits for declaration of title are not barred. The entries that are already made however shall always be subject to the decision of the civil suit, if any, to be filed by the appellant. With the observations as above, the writ appeal shall stand dismissed. The interim order earlier granted by this Court shall accordingly stand vacated. No costs. (B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J) Dt. 08..07..2004 (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) msv. DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 .2 CD copies 2 The Joint Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaligowraram, Nalgonda District. 4 2 CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.