IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 9521 of 2003 Between: 1 Guralla Sarnappa, S/o.Bhadrappa, R/o. Kondurg Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2 Guralla Bachamma, W/o.Bhadrappa, R/o. Kondurg Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 3 Guralla Chandrasekhar, S/o.Bhadrappa, R/o. Kondurg Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondurg Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 4 C.Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o.C.Venkateswara Rao,(Late) R/o.Kondurg Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 5 C.Sreenath Rao,(since died) by his son & L.R.C.Harinath Rao,Major, R/o.Kondurg Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar 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 issue a writ or order or direction more specifically a Writ of Mandamus and peruse the records of the respondents 1 to 3 pertaining to their impugned orders namely L.Dis.No.F2/2949/2002 dated 31-5-2002 of the 1st respondent,No.K.1466/2949/2002 dt.4-6-2002 of 2nd respondent and No.1396/02 dated 28-6-2002 of 3rd respondent and declare the impugned orders of respondents 1 to 3 are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, against the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and quash the same in interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.RAMABRAHMAM Counsel for the Respondents 1to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 9521 of 2003 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the impugned orders – L.Dis.F2/2949/2002 dated 31.5.2002 of 1st respondent, K/1466/2949/2002 dated 4.6.2002 of 2nd respondent and No.1396/02 dated 28.6.2002 of 3rd respondent – as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, an Occupancy Rights Certificate was conferred on respondent No.4 to an extent of Ac.6-30 guntas of land in S.No.227/1/EE of Kondurg village on 18.9.1980. The appeal filed by the petitioners herein against the said order was dismissed. Further, the matter was carried by way of civil revision petitions before this Court and the same were also dismissed. After those proceedings have attained finality, it appears, 1st respondent directed 2nd respondent to carry out the entries in the revenue records as per the Occupancy Rights Certificate conferred in favour of 4th respondent. In turn, 2nd respondent directed 3rd respondent and 3rd respondent passed impugned order dated 28.6.2002 wherein he has reported to the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar that the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar vide File No.K/6264/97 dated 25.4.1998, which was confirmed by the Joint Collector in Appeal No.B2/7/98 and F2/1A-8/99 dated 8.9.1999 and further approved by this Court in C.R.P. No. 3906 of 2000 and C.R.P. No. 172 of 2000 has been implemented in the revenue records and the directions have been complied with. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Ramabrahmam strenuously contended that whenever there is change in the revenue records, as per A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 the affected parties are entitled for a notice. According to the learned counsel, in this case no notice of any kind was issued by 3rd respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer before effecting changes in the Record of Rights. 3rd respondent has simply followed the directions of 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, as directed by 1st respondent – District Collector. Thus, 3rd respondent has not followed the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the impugned orders are in gross violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1971 and liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.4 submitted that there was change in the revenue records in view of issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate dated 18.9.1980, which was confirmed in the Appeal by the Joint Collector and in the civil revision petitions, by this Court. All along, the petitioners were parties to those proceedings. Therefore, there was no necessity of issuing notice while altering the entries in the revenue records. The revenue records are sought to be altered in view of the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued in favour of 4th respondent on 18.9.1980 to an extent of Ac.6-30 guntas in S.No.227/1/EE of Kondurg village of Mahaboobnagar District. Therefore, the petitioners should not have any grievance, having fought and lost the battle up to this Court. The petitioners are making all futile efforts to drag on the matter and see that the orders passed under the Inams Abolition Act and issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate become futile. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the impugned orders and other material available on record. It is an admitted fact that O.R.C. was issued on 18.9.1980 in favour of 4th respondent in respect of Ac.6-30 guntas in S.No.227/1/EE of Kondurg village and the same has attained finality in C.R.P. Nos.3906 of 1999 and 172 of 2003 before this Court. In view of the fact that the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act attained finality, the 4th respondent has every right and title over the land to an extent of Ac.6-30 guntas in S.No.227/1/EE of Kondurg village. But, nonetheless, when an existing entry is sought to be altered, in view of the provisions of the Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 the petitioners are entitled for notice. May be, it is a futile exercise in view of attainment of finality of the proceedings in respect of the subject land under the Inams Abolition Act. But the fact that which part of Ac.6.30 guntas of land requires to be shown in favour of respondent No.4 is not clear. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that against an extent of Ac.8.00 of land, the entries are altered. These are all pure questions of fact and it is always desirable that, to avoid such conflicts the Tahsildar should have issued notice and decided the matter, before altering the entries, though respondent No.4 is entitled for alteration of such entries as a matter of right in view of the proceedings which had attained finality under the Inams Abolition Act. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to file a detailed representation before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondurg, showing the variations, if any, in the extent and the location of Ac.6-30 guntas of land in S.No.227/1/EE of Kondurg village in altering the entries. Till the matter is decided by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the entries made in R.O.R. shall not be altered. The petitioners are directed to make representation in this regard within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on such filing, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondurg shall dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 16-6-2009. MVB.