IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6365 of 2001 Between: Jupelli Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Bama Rao And another ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary for Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad And others .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ or Order or Direction more in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI to call for the records and declare the action of the respondents 3 to 5 herein in updating the records of rights regarding Sy.No.79, measuring Ac.5.27 Gts., situated at Sardhapur Village, Sircilla Mandal, Karimnagar District, passed in file No.B/665/97, dt.21.10.1997 in favour of the 6th respondent as confirmed by the 4th respondent in his order in file No.D/776/98, dated 02.11.1998 and confirmed in Revision Case No.D2/7565/98, dated 29.9.2000 as arbitrary, bad, illegal and against the provisions of Act, A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, as amended by Act 1 of 1989, apart from the same being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice, and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.C.RAMESH SAGAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: --- The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICEV.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.6365 of 2001 ORDER: Two petitioners are brothers. They are sons of one Jupelli Bama Rao. Father was pattadar of land admeasuring Acs.11.02 guntas in survey No.79 situated at Sardhapur village of Sircilla Mandal in Karimnagar District. Father died in 1989. After his death, petitioners applied for succession. Accordingly, fifth respondent granted succession to petitioners recognizing them as legal heirs. Sixth respondent herein moved an application before fifth respondent for mutation in respect of Acs.5.27 guntas in survey No.79. He claimed that he purchased said extent under registered sale deed dated 29.12.1975 from father of petitioners, late Bama Rao. Fifth respondent considered the same and passed orders of mutation of land in favour of sixth respondent. Having come to know about the same, petitioners then preferred appeal before fourth respondent unsuccessfully. Feeling aggrieved, they then approached third respondent under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for short). By impugned order dated 29.9.2000, revision petition was dismissed, aggrieved by which present writ petition is filed seeking writ of Certiorari to quash orders of Joint Collector, Karimnagar. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. It is stated that after death of Bama Rao, petitioners were granted succession during 1990-1991, as there were no objections for the same. After patta was made in favour of petitioners, sixth respondent produced registered document No.3545, dated 29.12.1975, claiming that he purchased the land. Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Sircilla Mandal, conducted enquiry and ordered correction of record of rights earlier granted in favour of petitioners. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that when an application is moved under Section 4 read with 5 of the Act, MRO is required to issue notice, conduct enquiry and follow the procedure contemplated under Rules 18 to 22 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (the Rules, for brevity). Due to non-compliance of the same, order of MRO is vitiated and Joint Collector failed to observe the same, and therefore, it suffers from error in law. A reading of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and Rules 18 to 22 of the Rules would show that if any person acquires a right by succession or sale or otherwise, he has to make application to Tahsildar for necessary record of rights. The said application has to be dealt with as per the procedure contemplated under Section 5 of the Act, which requires a notice to be issued under Section 5(3) of the Act. Rule 19(1) of the Rules refers to notice contemplated under Section 5(3) of the Act and as per this, notice has to be issued in Form No.VIII appended to the Rules. Rule 22 also contemplates general/special notice be issued by Tahsildar to persons interested. Assuming that procedure is not followed as contemplated, does it vitiate any order passed by Tahsildar granting succession to petitioners. The answer must be in the negative. Admittedly petitioners were granted succession in respect of land owned by late Bama Rao. They were not issued any record of rights. After coming to know the same, sixth respondent moved for necessary changes in the mutation i.e., for record of rights. At that stage, having regard to the mutation proceedings, procedure in the considered opinion of this Court, is not as contemplated under Section 5(3) of the Act read with Rule 19 of the Rules, but the same falls under Section 5(6) of the Act, which empowers Tahsildar to correct clerical errors if any. When the succession was granted to petitioners, Tahsildar obviously did not look into registration particulars in which event the sale in favour of sixth respondent would have been revealed. When sixth respondent moved application, the same was not granted. Aggrieved by the mutation granted by Tahsildar to sixth respondent, petitioners then availed remedy of appeal. Appellate authority, after finding document produced by sixth respondent genuine, dismissed appeal. Again revisional authority also came to the conclusion that during lifetime of Bama Rao, sixth respondent purchased property under registered document dated 29.12.1975 and the same cannot be ignored. Even if the same was ignored, at the time of granting succession/mutation in favour of sixth respondent, Tahsildar rectified it and therefore, it does not render the orders passed by Tahsildar in favour of sixth respondent illegal. In a situation of this nature, if the petitioners claim better title, it is always open to them to avail remedy as provided under Section 8(2) of the Act and approach civil court for declaration. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) August 05, 2009 YS