THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22091 of 2009 Dated: 01.12.2009 Between: Mohd. Bandagi. .. Petitioner. And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda Division, Nalgonda District, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: According to the petitioner, one Mohd. Begum, w/o. Mohd. Hussain, r/o. Kandukur village, Gundlapally (Dindi) Mandal, Nalgonda District, who owned the lands to an extent of Ac.16.05 gts. in Sy.Nos.528, 618, 619, 620, 458 and 460 of Kandukuru village of Gundlapalli Mandal, adopted him by way of adoption deed executed on 11.12.2007 and registered vide document No.48 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District. The petitioner contends that pursuant to the said adoption, he became the successor of the said Mohd. Begum and, as such, succession was implemented in his favour by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Gundlapally (Dindi) Mandal, Nalgonda District, in the concerned revenue records. It is the grievance of the petitioner that aggrieved by the succession implemented in his favour, the 3rd respondent, none other than his uncle, filed an objection petition before the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, stating that he is also having a share in the property of Mohd. Begum, but the 1st respondent, without affording him an opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order vide proceedings in E1/404/2009, dated 19.02.2009, whereunder, while canceling the succession implemented in his favour and the transfer of the subject property, the 2nd respondent was directed to go through the Muslim Law in Modern India and implement succession as contemplated by Law. Questioning the said impugned order, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that may be the adoption is not recognized under the Muslim Personal Law, but even otherwise the petitioner is fortified by the gift deed executed by Mohd. Begum and, therefore, under the said gift deed, the petitioner is entitled for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Had the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, the petitioner would have placed the documents, in support of his claim, before him, but the 1st respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, has straightaway passed the impugned order and, therefore, the same is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1and 2 and Sri K.Lakshmi Manohar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. It is settled law that Muslim Law does not recognize adoption. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cancellation of the mutation already ordered by the 1st respondent under the impugned order is untenable. May be, the petitioner is entitled for mutation under some other documents, such as, gift deed, alleged to have been executed by Mohd. Begum. This aspect can very well be gone into by the 2nd respondent, who was already directed under the impugned order to go through the Muslim Law in Modern India and implement succession as contemplated by Law. Under these circumstances, it is made clear that any representation/objections filed by the petitioner shall be taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, while deciding as to the mutation of entries pertaining to the subject lands in the concerned revenue records in pursuance of the directions of the 1st respondent under the impugned proceedings. Even otherwise, the Tahsildar shall issue notice to the petitioner before passing final orders as directed by the 1st respondent through the impugned proceedings. However, during pendency of the said exercise, the entries in the revenue records, as available as on today, shall be continued. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 01.12.2009 v v Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, during pendency of said exercise, the entries in the Revenue records as available as on today shall be continued.