IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13879 of 2000 Between: Yapala Rajendra Reddy. … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: --- Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue for R.1 to R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 4-7-2000 passed by respondent No.2, whereby he reversed order dated 16-6-1997 passed by respondent No.3. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. On the basis of an unregistered sale deed, respondent No.4 approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District, for mutation of her name in the Record of Rights and issue of pattadar pass books and title deeds. Her claim having been allowed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3, who by his order dated 16-6-1997 allowed the same and directed the name of the petitioner to be entered in the Record of Rights. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.4 filed a revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). Respondent No.2 allowed the said revision on two grounds, viz., that respondent No.3, while allowing the appeal, has not issued notice and opportunity of hearing to respondent No.4; and that the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim. He observed that the sale deed, on the basis of which he sought for mutation, was not validated under Section 5A of the Act. On these premises the order of respondent No.3 was set aside by respondent No.2. I do not find any legal error in the order passed by respondent No.2 nor any one, on behalf of the petitioner, is present to point out any such error. Therefore, the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18-07-2008 MNR