THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22678 of 2001 Dated:26.08.2009 Between: Edla Shobha Rani. …Petitioner and The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar, And others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22678 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner is resident of Karimnagar. Statedly, she is owner of land admeasuring Ac.1.21 guntas in survey No.1163 situated at Mankammathota locality of Karimnagar Town. After death of her husband, she inherited the property along with another extent of Ac.0.06 guntas in survey No.1155. She filed an application under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. During the enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, no objections were received, and therefore, by proceedings dated 13.02.2001, the first respondent granted mutation incorporating the name of the petitioner in the record of rights as pattadar. It is alleged that respondent Nos.2 and 3 out of animosity filed an application on 03.07.2001 before the first respondent for correction of entries in relation to land in survey No.1163. Therefore, first respondent issued notice dated 26.07.2001 calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on 05.08.2001 with all the documentary evidence to support the recording of her husband’s name in 1993-1994. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the first respondent. First respondent filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition and asserting that as per the clarification issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide reference No.ROR/128/99, dated 14.10.1999, Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to rectify the entries in the revenue records at any time if there are no objections. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also filed a counter affidavit pointing out the alleged illegalities in recording the name of the petitioner in the record of rights. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, this Court is not convinced that first respondent suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction. It is axiomatic that unless and until a public authority is shown to suffer inherent lack of jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition would not lie. Even if there is a persevere illegality in a public authority conducting enquiry in connection with redressal of grievance of a citizen, the party has to wait for the proper decision and then seek appropriate writ from this Court. By impugned notice, the petitioner was only asked to appear before him with all the necessary documentary evidence in support of the entries in favour of her husband made in 1993-1994. The petitioner is given liberty to produce all the necessary documents before the first respondent, who is directed to dispose of the enquiry within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition, with the above observation and direction, is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.08.2009 vs