THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.14995 OF 2010 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, a writ of Certiorari is sought to quash the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 24.5.2010. The 1st petitioner is the widow, and the 2nd petitioner is the son of late Sri Narasimhulu. Respondents 5 and 6 are the children of Smt.Alti Adamma, the sister of late Sri Narasimhulu. Smt.A. Adamma is said to have been granted a ryotwari patta by proceedings dated 12.10.1979 for an extent of Ac.1-24 cents, and the 1st petitioner and her husband late Narasimhulu are said to have been granted ryotwari pattas by proceedings dated 2.11.1979 over an extent of Ac.7-19 cents, of which the 1st petitioner is said to have been granted 2/3 share and late Sri Narasimhulu 1/3rd share. While matters stood thus, a representation was filed by Smt. A.Adamma before the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram in the year 2001 seeking issuance of pattadar pass books. Against the order of the Tahsildar rejecting her request, Smt.Adamma is said to have submitted a representation to the R.D.O. which Sri K.Subrahmanya Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6, contends to be an appeal under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The R.D.O. confirmed the order of the Tahsildar. Aggrieved threby respondents 5 and 6, after the demise of their mother Smt.A. Adamma, preferred a revision to the 4th respondent who, by proceedings dated 24.5.2010, remanded the matter back to the R.D.O. directing him to examine the documents filed by them after affording an opportunity to both parties; and take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sri P. Veera Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, more than 24 years after ryotwari pattas were granted in favour of the 1st petitioner and her husband, an appeal was preferred by Smt.A. Ademma before the R.D.O; the RDO had entertained the appeal without even a condone delay petition being filed; the documents relied upon by the revision petitioners (respondents 5 and 6 herein) did not relate to the land for which they were claiming ryotwari pattas; and the allegations of fraud were raised for the first time before the revisional authority, and were not raised even before the R.D.O. who was the appellate authority under the Act. Learned counsel would further assert that, even without recording any finding on the allegations of fraud made in the revision petition filed by respondents 5 and 6, the 4th respondent had remanded the matter back to the R.D.O. to examine the documents filed afresh, after affording opportunity to both parties; no reasons were assigned in the impugned order for remanding the matter back to the R.D.O; and the impugned order is bereft of reasons, and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Sri K.Subrahmanya Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 5 and 6, would state that Smt.A.Adama, a widow, had placed complete trust on her brother late Sri Narasimhulu, who cheated her, usurped the land which originally belonged to her; played fraud on her as was evident from the documents filed before the revisional authority; as the scope of revision was limited, and as he may not have been justified in conclusively determining whether or not fraud had been committed, the revisional authority, instead of examining the allegations of fraud, had considered it appropriate to remand the matter back to the R.D.O. who could also record the evidence of both parties, and thereafter decide whether or not fraud had been committed. It is no doubt true that fraud vitiates all acts, and delay by itself may not preclude the authorities from examining these aspects. It is the case of respondents 5 and 6, as is evident from the order impugned in this Writ Petition, that the 1st petitioner and her husband taking advantage of the trust reposed on them by Smt. A. Adamma, who was an illiterate widow with two minor children had played fraud on her, and had usurped land of an extent of Ac.7-91 cents which rightfully belonging to her. It cannot, however, be lost sight of that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, even in the light of serious allegations of fraud, the revisional authority could not have remanded the matter, back for examination, to the original/appellate authority as a matter of course. In the first instance, he should have perused the documents placed before him, and should have recorded his satisfaction, even if it be prima facie, that the said documents revealed the possibility of fraud having been committed. It is only if he is, prima facie, satisfied that the allegations of the revision petitioners, of fraud having committed by the 1st petitioner and her husband, are well founded would the revisional authority have been justified in remanding the matter back to the RDO or to the Tahsildar (the original authority) to examine and record his conclusion on these allegations of fraud on a detailed consideration of the material on record. The 4th respondent does not assign reasons why he has chosen to remand the matter back to the 2nd respondent. This Court, in Kakkera Peda Audeyya v. Revenue Divisional Officer[1], held that the words ‘persons interested’ could not be said to have reference only to the persons who appeared at the enquiry under Section 3, but would also refer to all other persons interested besides those who applied for the grant of patta. Even if respondents 5 and 6 are held to be persons interested, their claim of having been subjected to fraud should have been examined in the first instance by the 4th respondent himself before deciding whether or not a detailed enquiry should be caused, if need be, by adducing evidence before the original authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. No such finding has been recorded by the 4th respondent. While Sri K. Subrahmanya Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners herein since the RDO has been asked to enquire into the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both sides, the fact remains that it is only after the earlier order of the RDO is set aside could the revisional authority have remanded the matter back to him for his consideration afresh. The impugned order does not even record that the order of the 2nd respondent, against which the revision is preferred, has been set aside. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the impugned order and direct the 4th respondent to hear the revision afresh and examine whether respondents 5 and 6 have made out a case of fraud (even if it be prima facie) and then pass an order, thereupon, in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to both sides, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________ 8-11-2011 asp [1] AIR 1972 AP 329