IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8414 of 2004 Between: 1 A. Venkat Rao S/o. Late A Ramachander Rao Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R.District. 2 A. Murlidhar Rao S/o. A. Ramachander Rao, Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R.District. 3 Smt. S.Sujatha W/o S.Ramachander Rao D/o late Narasimha Rao Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District At Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, At Attapur, R.R.District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. 4 Mohd. Yousuf Ali S/o. Late Mohd. Rahamat ali R/o. 10-3-300/A/1, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. 5 MOhd. Yousuf Hussain S/o. Rashid Ali H.No. 9-4-86/222/144, Mahaboob Garden, ToliChowki, Golconda (P) R.R.District. 6 Mohd. Sauifullah S/o. Abrar ali H.No. 9-4-86/222/144, Mahaboob Garden, ToliChowki, Golconda (P) R.R.District. 7 Mohd. Basith Ali S/o. Rahmat Ali H.No. 9-4-86/222/144, Mahaboob Garden, ToliChowki, Golconda (P) R.R.District. 8 Smt. Badar Shahanaz, W/o. Shirajuddin H.No. 9-4-86/222/144, Mahaboob Garden, ToliChowki, Golconda (P) R.R.District. 9 Smt. Zubeda Shahnaz W/o. Rahamat Ali H.No. 9-4-86/222/144, Mahaboob Garden, ToliChowki, Golconda (P) R.R.District. 10 Jagadish pershad S/o. Kedarmal R.No. 21-2-492, Maharajgung, Hyderabad. 11 Puranmal S/o. Jabbarmal R/o. 15-2-352, Maharajgung, Hyd. 12 Rajender Pershad Agarwal S/o. Kedarmal R/o. H.No.14-2-405, Rajakpura, Hyd. 13 MOhan Prasad S/o. Badri Prasad, 21-2-492, charminar, Hyd. 14 A. Narsing Rao S/o. Late A. Ramchander Rao Janawada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R.Dist. 15 a. Venkateswara Rao S/o. Late A. Ramchander Rao Janawada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R.Districat. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ aof Mandamus declaring the orders of the 1 respondent in Procs. No.D5/6710/2000, D5/7081/2000 and D5/5653/2003 Dt. 10.02.2004 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice besides being violative of Art. 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India andconsequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO FOR RVAK-10 TO 13 MR.T.BHEEMSEN & T.V.PRANAI KUMAR FOR R MR.KESHAV HULSURKAR FOR RVAK-5&8 GP FOR REVENUE FOR R1 TO 3 MR.M.GOVIND REDDY FOR RVAK-14 MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY FOR R24.10.07,V-4,6,7&9 The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against the common order of the 1st respondent dated 10.2.2004, in three revisions i.e., Case No. D5/6710/2000; D5/7081/2000 and D5/5653/2003, rejecting the first two and allowing the third. The writ petitioners filed the first of the two revisions before the 1st respondent under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), while the third revision i.e., D5/5653/2003 was filed by Respondents 4 to 13 herein. The petitioners filed the two revisions against the order of the second respondent dated 29.5.1999, rejecting the appeal bearing reference No. C/3127/94. The writ petitioners had preferred the said appeal before the 2nd respondent against the order of the third respondent dated 1.10.1988, whereby the 3rd respondent rejected the representation of the writ petitioners for mutation of the lands in their favour, in an extent of Ac.36.16 guntas in Sy.Nos. 10, 19 to 28 and 41, Gandipet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal. Before the 3rd respondent, the petitioners claimed that the property originally belonged to Narasimha Rao and Ramachandra Rao. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the sons of Ramachandra Rao and the 3rd petitioner, the daughter of Narasimha Rao. On the death of Narasimha Rao and Ramachandra Rao, being their legal heirs, they are entitled to mutation of their names in respect of the properties, was their claim. The Respondents 14 and 15 resisted this claim of the petitioners before the 3rd respondent, contending that they are the legal representatives of the original pattadar one A. Venkat Rao. The Respondents 4 to 13 claimed that the property belonged to one Mohd. Rahmat Ali, who was the pattadar and that after his death the lands devolved on his legal heirs. The 4th respondent herein lodged claim before the third respondent (in opposition to the claims of the writ petitioners), on the ground that he is the legal representative of Rahmat Ali and is in possession and enjoyment of the land since long. The 3rd respondent held that though Narasimha Rao and Ramachandra Rao appear to be the pattadars in respect of the survey numbers and had died some time back, there was a decision of the Board of Revenue dated 6.3.1951 on an appeal filed against the order of the first Taluqdar dated 26th Khurdad 1357 Fasli, wherein it was observed that Rahmat Ali was in possession of the property and if Narasimha Rao, Son of Venkat Rao were aggrieved, he could approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for establishing his right. Narasimha Rao does not appear to have done so. Rahmat Ali had filed O.S.No.4 of 1952 before the Munsif Magistrate, West Hyderabad, seeking a declaration of his right of ownership and patta and for a permanent injunction. By the judgment dated 25.9.1954, the suit was decreed in favour of Rahmat Ali in respect of the reliefs of declaration of ownership and for injunction, but as regards the declaration of his right to patta, the suit claim was rejected as time barred. There were other proceedings before the Revenue authorities by the 4th respondent herein, asserting to be the legal heir of Rahmat Ali and claiming protected tenancy under the provisions of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In the light of all these complex and competing claims of title to the property, the 3rd respondent declined to record mutation in favour of the writ petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, as already stated, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent recorded his own reasons and analysis of the competing claims to ownership or possession of the property in question and rejected the appeals preferred by the writ petitioners. The petitioners thereupon preferred revisions before the 1st respondent under Section 9 of the Act. The 1st respondent, after an assessment of the record, concurred with the conclusions of Respondents 2 and 3 that Rahmat Ali was in possession of the lands in question, even at the time of preparation of Khasra Pahani during 1954-55 and therefore his name should have been shown in the Occupants Column No.13. On this reasoning, while dismissing the two revisions preferred by the writ petitioners against the orders of the 2nd respondent, confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent also directed the 3rd respondent to correct the entry in the patta column of Pahanies by incorporating the name of Rahmat Ali from 1954-55 onwards, deleting the name of Venkat Rao, Narasimha Rao and Ramachandra Rao. Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the 1st respondent erred in directing the 3rd respondent to delete the names of Venkat Rao, Narasimha Rao and Ramachandra Rao in the pattadar columns and incorporating the name of Rahmat Ali from 1954-55 onwards, since the name of Venkat Rao appears in the pattadar column from 1954 onwards, the 1st respondent could not have directed the deletion of Venkat Rao and substitution by the name of Rahmat Ali. The 1st respondent is the revisional authority under Section 9 of the Act, who has jurisdiction, power and authority either suo motu or on an application made to call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained and on satisfaction as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and to modify, annul or reverse or remit for reconsideration. The first respondent, exercising revisional power under Section 9 of the Act, which as noticed above is plenitudinous, directed incorporating the name of Rahmat Ali, in lieu of the names of Venkat Rao, Narasimha Rao and Ramachandra Rao and from 1954-55 onwards, on the basis of the finding that the records disclosed that Rahmat Ali was in possession of the lands in question even at the time of preparation of Khasra Pahani during 1954-55 and as per extant Revenue practice, in filling the Khasra, Rahmat Ali should have been shown as the Occupant in Column No.13. An occupant being defined as a holder in actual possession of land other than tenant, Rahmat Ali was the owner of the land and therefore the pattadar. Section 8 of the Act while enjoining a bar of suits as against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to an entry made in any record of rights or as regards an omission or amendment of such an entry under the provisions of the Act, enjoins in sub-section 2 that if a person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with such declaration. The order of the 1st respondent including to the extent of the direction to delete the names of Venkat Rao, Narasimha Rao and Ramachandra Rao and to substitute the name Rahmat Ali from 1954-55 onwards, is not an order patently without jurisdiction. It is at best an order in error within the jurisdiction, having regard to the breadth of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act. As all the authorities- respondents 3 to 1 have concurrently declined to mutate the names of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question, the petitioners should more appropriately seek recourse to appropriate declaratory or specific reliefs before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There is already a surfeit of administrative adjudication by a process of fact discernment under the provisions of the Act. If the petitioners desire to seriously pursue their rights to the property in question, the appropriate remedy is as enabled under Section 8 (2) of the Act. Since there is no patent lack of jurisdiction in the order of the first respondent, this Court is not inclined to interfere. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies including under Section 8 (2) of the Act, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 07.03.2008 cvm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}