HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 11010 of 2008 ORDER: Although interlocutory applications are listed for hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is heard and disposed of finally by this order. In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, the 2nd respondent herein, dated 2.2.2007 issued vide proceedings No. D.Dis. No. 1663/06, as confirmed by the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram, by his proceedings in Rc. No.2942/2008, dated 5.2.2008. Petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of agricultural land of an extent of Acs. 5.02 cents in Survey No. 2/1; Acs. 1.88 cents in Survey No.2/2 and Acs.3.03 cents in Survey No. 19/4 of Kancherupalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. According to them, the property in question is an ancestral property having been purchased their late paternal grandfather from its earlier owners in the year 1969. They further stated that after the death of their grand father and father, they succeeded to the property and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. They further stated that their father also filed a declaration under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and after due enquiry, the lands were computed to the holding of the petitioners. While so, Smt. Sanyasamma and N. Saraswathamma, the respondents 4 and 5 herein, have approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhogapuram stating inter alia that even though the aforesaid lands were assigned to them, but, one K. Venkata Ramanaiah, had obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the aforesaid lands erroneously. The Mandal Revenue Officer, after conducting enquiry into the matter, submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram. Basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by invoking the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the R.O.R. Act’), has passed orders vide proceedings in D.Dis No. 1663/06, dated 2.2.2007 by recording a finding that the lands in question are assigned to respondents 4 and 5. While holding that the lands in question were alienated in contravention of the provisions of the Board Standing Orders 15(12) and 3(a), he cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners’ father in respect of the aforesaid lands. He also directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to handover the possession of the same to the legal heirs of the assignees. Challenging the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the R.O.R. Act and the Joint Collector, by order dated 5.2.2008, dismissed the revision petition while confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the property in question is an ancestral property of the petitioners, having been purchased by their late grand father. He further submitted that the petitioners’ father also filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Land Ceiling Act and after due enquiry the lands were included in their family holding and that the property in question is a private property and therefore the lands covered by the said property cannot be termed as assigned lands. He further contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the primary authority, cancelled the pattedar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners’ father and on revision, the 1st respondent without assigning any reasons has dismissed the revision through a cryptic order. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents has contended that the aforesaid lands were assigned to respondents 4 and 5 and as the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were wrongly issued to K.Venkataramanaiah, through whom the petitioners claimed title, the Revenue Divisional Officer has cancelled the same and on revision, the Joint Collector dismissed the revision petition through the impugned order. He very fairly submitted that the Joint Collector did not record any reasons for dismissing the revision through the impugned order and hence, the matter may be remitted to the Joint collector for fresh consideration. It is seen from the record that the Primary Authority has passed order dated 2.2.2007 cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the father of the petitioners basing on the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer. In view of the fact that the lands in question have been purchased by the petitioners’ ancestors on payment of valuable consideration through a registered sale deed dated 25/8/1967, unless such sales are declared as illegal, the Primary Authority was not entitled to adjudicate upon the issue of the validity of such sales and order for delivery of possession to the unofficial respondents. On revision, the Joint Collector, without taking these facts into consideration has quite mechanically dismissed the revision without assigning any reasons through the impugned order. In view of the fact that no reasons have been assigned by the Joint Collector for rejecting the revision petition through the impugned order and while taking into account the submission of the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, this Court feels that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Joint Collector for passing appropriate orders on the revision petition afresh. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Joint Collector, dated 5.2.2008 is set aside with a direction to the Joint Collector to consider the matter afresh by giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to unofficial respondents 4 and 5. The order dated 2.2.2007 of the Revenue Divisional Officer shall remain suspended till disposal of the revision petition by the Joint Collector. However, it is made clear that till such time, the petitioners shall not alienate or transfer the aforesaid lands in favour of any third parties. The writ petition is allowed to extent indicated above. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, no further orders are necessary in the W.P.M.P. No.36775 of 2009 and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 28th October, 2010 pnb