IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12421 of 2008 Between: 1 Mohmmad Ismail S/o. mohammad Rahmathi Ali R/o. H.No. 6-6-29, Gunj Maidan, Sangareddy, Medak Dsitrict. 2 Mohmmad Hajid S/o. mohammad Shareef R/o. H.No. 6-4-23/1, Nalsabgadda, Sangareddy, Medak Dsitrict. 3 Mohd. Nayeem S/o. Mahd. Khaja R/o. H.No. 1-2-83,Hanuan Nagar, Sangareddy, Medak Dsitrict. 4 Ameer /Baig S/o. Khaja Baig R/o. H.No. 6-4-87/1, Naisab Gadda, Sangareddy, Medak Dsitrict, A.P. 5 Mohd. Bahadur Hussain S/o. Mohammad Hussain R/o. 6-6-197, Opp: Motimahal Talkies, Sangareddy, Medak Dsitrict. 6 Mohmmad Afsar Khan S/o. Mohammad Taqul Khan R/o. H.No. 5-2-79/3, Naisab Gadda, Sangareddy, Medak Dsitrict. 7 Mirza Mahaboob Baig S/o. Lal Baig R/o. H.No. 6-4-11, Naisab Gadda, Sangareddy, Medak Dsitrict. 8 Sathyanarayana, s/o. thukaram Mothku R/o. H.No. 3-7-67, Sadasivpet, Medak Dsitrict. All the Petitioner are rep. by their GPA,Sri Vallabhai Patel aged:50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.3,Siddapur Colony Sadasivpet, Medak Dist. vide Regfistered General Power of Atrtorney Doc. No. 2779/2006, 2825/2006 and 5367/07 on the ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District -A.P. 2 The Tahsildar, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak District-A.P. 3 The Sub-Registrar, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak District -A.P. 4 Deshetti Sharanamma Alias Sindole, W/o. Late Baswaraj, R/o. Sadasivpet town, Medak District, Rep. by her Powetr of Attornay No.1 Kothagolla Krishna, S/o. Laxmaiah, R/o. H.No. 2-193/1, Gollakeri, Sadasivpet Town and Mandal, Medak District. 5 Deshetti Sharnamma Alias Sindole W/o. Late Baswaraj, R/o. Sadasivpet Town, Medak Dist. rep. by her Power of Attornay No.2 Mallikarjunappa Shetkar, S/o. Sharanappa Shetkar, R/o. H.No. 10-10, Bichkunda Village and Mandal, Nizambad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings No.A3/5355/07, dated 04-04-2008 purporting to be exercising the power u/s.5-B of A.P.Records of Rights and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 as illegal, arbitrary, un- constitutional, against in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and ex- facie illegal, and consequentially praying to set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 12421 of 2008 Order: The petitioners state that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the lands in question and the revenue authorities also issued necessary pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that based on a representation made by the unofficial respondent No.4, the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to them, suo motu took up the matter, and passed the impugned order dated 04.04.2008, which is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no suo motu power is conferred on the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer by Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to take up the matter, and as such, the action of the 1st respondent in entertaining the representation filed by the unofficial respondent No.4, and passing the impugned order, and more so without issuing any notice, is not only illegal and arbitrary, but is violative of the principles of natural justice, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in “Thota Narasimga Rao v. State of A.P., and others. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents and also perused the record produced by him. A perusal of the record produced by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, would clearly indicate that before passing the impugned orders, no notices whatsoever were issued to the petitioners, and this fact, is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. This Court in “Thota Narasimga Rao v. State of A.P., and others, considered similar issue as is involved in the present writ petition, and observed thus: “…………When a person is aggrieved by any order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such amendment, an appeal shall lie to the RDO. Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act further clarifies that the MRO shall have the power to correct clerical errors if any in the pattadar passbook. The order passed by the RDO under Section 5(5) of the Act is explicitly made subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, which confers the revisional powers on the Collector (which means Collector of a District and includes the joint Collector). As between sub-section (5) of Section 5 and Section 9 of the Act, there is a difference. Under Section 9 of the Act, the Joint Collector can take up suo motu revision in relation to the record of rights or order, any recording authority/appellate authority to satisfy himself as to regularity, correctness, legality or propriety. This ‘suo motu’ power is conspicuously absent in sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act. Reading Section 5(5) and Section 9, and sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act together, it becomes clear that when once the PPB/TD is issued to the person claiming to be the owner of the agricultural land, the same can be cancelled by an appellate authority on an appeal being presented to him or by revisional authority either suo motu or on an application. The RDO has no such power though Section 5(6) of the Act confers power to the limited extent on the MRO to correct clerical errors in the passbooks. Therefore, there cannot be any manner of doubt that suo motu exercise of powers by the RDO would be ex facie illegal………….” Since the impugned order has been passed by the 1st respondent on the application made by respondent No.4, without issuing notice to the petitioners, as admitted to by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and having regard to the law laid down by this court in the judgment referred to above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the impugned order dated 04.04.2008, passed by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is set aside. At this stage, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the 4th respondent may be given the liberty to file revision under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Collector. He is at liberty to file such revision, if the law permits. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25.07.2008 Ksr/Nsr