IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7482 of 2001 Between: Syed Imam S/o. Syed Khader R/o. Gultimukala Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Medak, Sangareddy, 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Siwampet Mandal, Medak District. 3 Smt.Ghousia Begum W/o. Late Syed Khasim R/o. 3-33, Old Bowenpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Syed Nasar S/o. Late Syed Khasim R/o. 3-33, Old Bowenpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondents 3 and 4: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 13-03-2001 passed by the Joint Collector-respondent No.1 as being without jurisdiction. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the record. The petitioner applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer-respondent No.2 for validation of a purported sale deed said to have been executed in his favour by his brother, Syed Khasim, on a stamp paper on 29-03-1985. By order dated 24-03-1994, respondent No.2 validated the sale deed in exercise of his power under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). Respondents 3 and 4, who felt aggrieved by the said order of respondent No.2, being the legal heirs of Syed Khasim, approached respondent No.1 by way of a revision and, after notice to the petitioner, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order on 13-03-2001, whereby he set aside the order of respondent No.2 passed in favour of the petitioner on the short ground that the mandatory notice in Form-XI, as envisaged under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules made under the Act, was not issued and that respondents 3 and 4 were not afforded an opportunity of objecting to the claim of the petitioner for validation. In the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is pleaded that as respondents 3 and 4 failed to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 5-B of the Act, respondent No.1 ought not to have entertained the revision and set aside the validation order passed by respondent No.2. It is alternatively averred that even assuming that the validation order was not preceded by notice in Form- XI to respondents 3 and 4, who are admittedly the legal heirs of the executant of the document, respondent No.1 ought to have remanded the matter to respondent No.2, for fresh consideration. Having heard the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the plea regarding entertainment of revision by respondent No.1 does not appear to be sound. Under Section 9 of the Act, respondent No.1 is vested with the power to examine the record of any recording authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B either suo motu or on an application made to him, in respect of any record of rights, and examine their regularity, correctness, legality or propriety. Respondent No.1 is vested with the further power of modifying, annulling or reversing or remitting the case for reconsideration. Ordinarily, the revisional authority does not exercise its jurisdiction unless the remedy of appeal is exhausted. But this procedure cannot be insisted to be followed in every case, as there may be exceptional cases such as the one on hand, where, admittedly, respondent No.2 failed to follow the mandatory procedure of giving notice to the interested parties before validating a document in exercise of his power under Section 5-A of the Act. As there was no notice to respondents 3 and 4, they would not have had an opportunity of knowing the factum of validation within a reasonable time and to avail the remedy of appeal. Therefore, on the facts of this case, I do not find any illegality in respondent No.1 in exercising the revisional jurisdiction to set right the error committed by respondent No.2 in validating the document. As regards the second plea of the petitioner, I find force therein. Having found that respondent No.2 has committed procedural illegality, respondent No.1 ought to have remitted the matter to respondent No.2, which power is expressly conferred on him by Section 9 of the Act. Respondent No.1 has merely left at setting aside the order of respondent No.2 and directing him to carry out necessary changes in the record of rights. As respondent No.1 set aside the order of respondent No.2, on the ground of lack of opportunity to respondents 3 and 4, the only appropriate course open to him was to direct respondent No.2 to reconsider the matter afresh, after giving notice and opportunity to respondents 3 and 4. To this extent, the order of respondent No.1 suffers from a patent legal error. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to initiate fresh proceedings for validation of the document submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the same, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd March, 2009 vrn