THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6891 OF 2000 3rd AUGUST, 2006 BETWEEN Koppu Narsing Rao … Petitioner vs. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6891 OF 2000 ORDER: On an application made by the third respondent, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam (MRO), by proceedings, dated 30.08.1997, ordered rectification of record of rights in favour of third respondent insofar as the land admeasuring Acs.5.35 guntas comprised in survey Nos.304/AA, 307/AA and 308/AA of Damdumailaram village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy and the remaining extent was directed to be registered in favour of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the third respondent, who was claiming the lands comprised in both the survey numbers preferred an appeal under 5(5) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for short). The second respondent entertained the appeal and while ordering notice, stayed operation of the orders of the MRO. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the third respondent ought to have preferred a revision petition before the Joint Collector and that second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal after lapse of about two years. He also attributed mala fides to the second respondent though the second respondent is not made a party in his personal capacity. Therefore, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the second respondent, this Court is not inclined to go into the question of mala fides on the part of the second respondent. A perusal of Section 5(5) of the Act would show that against any order passed by the Recording Authority (MRO), ordering rectification of the entries in record of rights, an appeal would certainly lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). As per Section 9 of the Act, a revision would lie to the Joint Collector against the order passed under Section 5(5) of the Act by the RDO. Indeed, a party who is aggrieved by the proceedings of the MRO has an option either to file appeal or to file revision. In this case, the third respondent chose to file appeal before the RDO and the action of the second respondent in entertaining the same cannot be faulted. The writ petition is devoid of any merits. The appeal is stated to be pending before the RDO and therefore, a direction shall issue to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition, with the above observations and direction, is disposed of. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 03.08.2006 pln