THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.3422 of 2008 ORDER: According to the petitioner, his father was having four acres of land in Survey No.161/AA, situated at Mancherial, Adilabad. After the death of his father, himself and his two brothers inherited Ac.1.14 guntas of land each. Thus, he became the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.1.14 guntas of land. That he never alienated his property in favour of the third respondent, but the third respondent, influenced the second respondent-Tahsildar, Mancherial and allegedly obtained an order in his favour vide proceeding No.13-B 11/88 dated 13.11.2000. Without there being any actual order, the second respondent mutated the name of the third respondent in the revenue records from 2000-01 onwards. When he came to know that the third respondent was proclaiming in the village that he purchased the subject land and got mutated his name in the revenue records, he made a representation to the second respondent on 11.12.2007 to furnish the order dated 13.11.2000, said to have been passed in favour of the third respondent and also made an application to the second respondent on the same date through his Advocate under Right to Information Act, 2005. The second respondent vide his letter dated 31.01.2008 informed him that the concerned file is not traceable; that efforts are being made to trace the bundle and that as and when the bundle is traced the same would be furnished to him. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no order in proceeding No.13-B 11/88 dated 13.11.2000 and that if any order is passed proceeding number will be given, whereas the number referred to by the third respondent i.e., 13-B refers to Form 13-B. Therefore, he made a representation to the first respondent-Joint Collector, Adilabad on 01.02.2008 and sought for his immediate interference in the matter, but, the first respondent did not take any action so far. Hence, this writ petition. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that the father of the petitioner Sri Buchiramaiah, S/o.Balaiah was the pattedar of the land admeasuring Ac.4.03 guntas situated in Survey No.161/A of Mancherial and that out of the said extent of land, the brothers of the petitioner succeeded Ac.1.15 guntas and Ac.1.14 guntas respectively, whereas the petitioner succeeded Ac.1.14 guntas in the year 1976-77. It is also stated that as per pahani for the year 2000-2001, the pattas of the petitioner and his two brothers were transferred in favour of the third respondent through ROR 11/88 dated 13.11.2000 and that except the petitioner, his brothers have not filed any objection for the said mutation till date. The petitioner has requested him to enquire into the matter and cancel the certificate issued to the third respondent by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial. It is further stated that under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), against the orders passed by the Tahsildar, remedy of filing of appeal is provided under Section 5-A of the Act before the appellate authority i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, and thereafter revision under Section 9 of the Act before the Revisional Authority i.e., Joint Collector. But, as per Section 5-B of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of order of the primary authority. As per Section 9 of the Act, the Collector may either suo moto or on an application made to him, call and examine the record of any recording authority i.e., MRO or RDO under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B of the Act in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained, to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified or annulled or revised or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. It is further stated that the petition filed by the petitioner has already been treated as a revision under Section 9 of the Act, and the Tahsildar, Mancherial has been directed to submit the entire case records including case file and other documents and that soon after receipt of the same, notices will be issued to all concerned/interested parties, and further action will be taken on merits of the case. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record. Since the first respondent has already treated the petition filed by the petitioner as revision under Section 9 of the Act and directed the second respondent-Tahsildar to submit the entire case records to him and that after receiving the entire case records, he will issue notices to all concerned/interested persons and take action, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to complete the enquiry in the revision taken up by him, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 30.09.2010 va