THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15757 of 2002 Date: 23.11.2011 Between: Kuthuru Laxma Reddy … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Nalgonda and 3 others. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15757 of 2002 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims title and possession in respect of Ac.37.39 guntas of land situated in various survey numbers of Dandampally Village, Nalgonda Mandal, having purchased the same from the respondent No.4. On a request made by the petitioner, his name was entered in the pahanies vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer dated 11.11.1997 by deleting the name of the 4th respondent herein. However, on the basis of complaint made by the 4th respondent alleging that the document produced by the petitioner was forged and that he was not in possession, the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer reviewed his earlier order dated 11.11.1997 and passed a fresh order dated 06.01.1998 restoring the name of the 4th respondent herein in the occupant column of the pahanies. Aggrieved by the said order dated 06.01.1998, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda. The said appeal was allowed by order dated 12.11.1999 and challenging the same, the 4th respondent preferred a revision before the 1st respondent under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act’). The 1st respondent-Joint Collector, by order dated 22.05.2002 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 11.11.1997 as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order dated 12.11.1999 and directed rectification of the pahanies as they were prior to correction by the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 11.11.1997. The said order passed by the 1st respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen, the 1st respondent recorded a clear finding that before passing the orders dated 11.11.1997 and 06.01.1998, the Mandal Revenue Officer had failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules’) which provides for holding an enquiry after giving notice to the person making an application and any other person known to be having interest. Hence, the order of the 1st respondent to the extent of setting aside the said orders of the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. However, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1st respondent ought not to have held that the petitioner has to approach the Court of law for declaration of his right in respect of the land in question. Having held that the Mandal Revenue Officer failed to follow the procedure as provided under Rule 16 of the Rules, the 1st respondent should have directed the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders with regard to the request of the writ petitioner to enter his name in the pahanies. Accordingly, the 1st respondent’s order dated 22.05.2002 to the extent of directing the petitioner to get his rights declared by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to hold a de novo enquiry after due notice to the writ petitioner, the 4th respondent and all other persons having interest in the land in question strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the ROR Act and the Rules made thereunder and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 23.11.2011 KLP