IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13285 of 2009 Between: 1 Suda Rama Bhadra Purushottam Rao, S/o. Late Uma Maheshwar RAo, R/o. H.No. 5-304/A, Wyra, Khammam District. 2 Smt. Suda Kasturi, W/o. Late Uma Maheshwar RAo, R/o. H.No. 5-304/A, Wyra, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Joint Collector, O/o. The District Collector, Khammam. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.b y Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. 3 Suda Latchamma, W/o. late Bhadraiah, R/O. Yagnanarayanapuram, Kallur Mandal, Khammam District. 4 Suda Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Late Bhadraiah, R/O. Yagnanarayanapuram, Kallur Mandal, Khammam District. 5 Suda Sivaiah, S/o. Tulasaiah, R/O. Yagnanarayanapuram, Kallur Mandal, Khammam District. 6 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal, Khammam 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 one a Writ of Certiorari calling for the record relating to the issuance of order dated 30-05-09 in ROR RP No. 3/2003 on the file of the 1st respondent and upholding the order dt. 15-04-2003 passed by the 2nd respondent in RC.No. A-2/4468/2001 and after perusing the same, declareit as illegal and unjust and cconsequently set-aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.M.R.VELU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 13285 of 2009 07-07-2009 Oral Order: The writ petition is directed against the revisional order of the 1st respondent in Revision Petition No. 3 of 2003 dated 30-05-2009 confirming the order dated 15-04-2003 passed by the 2nd respondent—Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam – allowing the appeal of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 5 (B) read with Section 21 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), aggrieved by the mutation of the names of the petitioners in respect of lands of an extent of Ac.05-10 gts., in survey Nos. 45 and 46; and Ac.2-00 in survey No. 123/EE. Inter alia the non- official respondents complained in the appeal to the 2nd respondent that the Mandal Revenue Officer had mutated the names of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question without notice and opportunity to them though they were interested persons. The petitioners as respondents in the appeal before the 2nd respondent impeached the maintainability of the appeal inter alia on the ground that the appeal is preferred beyond the period of limitation. This ground of latches and bar of limitation was rightly rejected by the appellate authority – the 2nd respondent – on the ground that as the appellants before him had no notice of the primary proceedings nor was the impugned order communicated to them, they could not be held to have instituted the appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. On merits, the 2nd respondent appellate authority found that mutation was effected by the Mandal Revenue Officer without following the due process and without issuing notice to the affected parties. Accordingly by the order dated 15-04-2003 the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred a revision to the 1st respondent under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. The 1st respondent rejected the revision by the order impugned recording on merits that the petitioners had misrepresented the relevant facts to the Mandal Revenue Officer in respect of the lands in survey Nos. 45 and 46 and 123/EE; and that the pattedar passbook and title deed were issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of the petitioners irregularly and unlawfully. The 1st respondent concurred with the appellate conclusions of the 2nd respondent. As a consequence of the 2nd and 1st respondents orders referred to above, the pattedar passbook and title deed issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question have been nullified. If the petitioners seek declaration of title or are aggrieved by any of the entries made or not made in the records of rights, they have available a remedy by way of approaching the civil Court of competent jurisdiction seeking declaratory relief under Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a remedy which is preserved by the provisions of Section 8 (2) of the Act. In the aforesaid circumstances and as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners seek to pursue the remedy of declaratory relief, no interference is called for in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 07-07-2009 Pvks