THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30140 of 2010 Date: 3.12.2010 Between: B.Sridevamma and others. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K. Rathangaapani Reddy Counsel for Respondents : A.G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30140 of 2010 Order: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings No.Rc.B142/2009, dated 6.6.2009 and consequential order dated 9.9.2010 passed by respondent No.2. I have heard Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. There exist disputes between petitioners on one side and respondent No.4 on the other in relation to properties comprised in Survey Nos.518/1, 518/2, 518/3, 518/4 and 518/6 totalling to Acs.9.00. It appears, at the instance of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 has sent a report dated 6.6.2009 to respondent No.2, whereunder he has opined that the above mentioned survey numbers contained only three sub- divisions and that the sale deeds held by the petitioners do not appear to be valid. Respondent No.2 on receipt of the report, addressed a letter in proceedings No. Rc,A/2915/1010, dated 9.9.2010 to the Sub-Registrar, Atmakur, wherein he has informed the latter that Survey No.518 comprises three sub-divisions with a total extent of Acs.13.61 cents and that the lands in the said survey number are covered by settlement patta and dry in nature and that the same do not fall under excess lands under t h e A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act,1973 or affected by the Land Acquisition Act. Feeling aggrieved by these two proceedings, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that respondent No.3 has virtually acted as a Civil Court in observing that the sale deeds held by the petitioners are not valid and that he has also committed a serious error in opining that Survey No.518 has only three sub-Divisions. Learned counsel also found fault with the communication issued by respondent No.2 to the Sub-Registrar stating that Survey No.518 has only thee sub- divisions. Having carefully examined the two impugned proceedings of respondent Nos. 2 an 3, I am of the opinion that they are not in the nature of orders adjudicating respective rights of the parties. While there cannot be any dispute that it is not part of the function of respondent No.3 to adjudicate upon the validity or otherwise of sale deeds or to examine the title of the parties, by the impugned proceedings, he has merely submitted his opinion to respondent No.2. So long as no adverse order has been passed on such opinion given by respondent No.3, the petitioners are entitled to ignore such a report. As regards the grievance of the petitioners that respondent No.2 has erroneously placed reliance on the report of respondent No. 3 and informed the Sub- Registrar that Survey No.518 has only three sub-divisions, in my opinion, this communication is also in the nature of a mere opinion of respondent No.2, which does not bind the petitioners. If the competent authority seeks to act upon such opinion, the petitioners are always entitled to raise all legally permissible pleas and convince such authority that these reports are erroneous and invalid. In such an event, it is incumbent and obligatory upon such competent authority to consider the pleas that may be raised by the petitioners and take an independent decision notwithstanding the opinions expressed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the main writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.38395 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 3rd December, 2010 pnb