THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6295 of 2010 26.03.2010 Between: Yama Gangamani ….Petitioner AND Tahsildar, Birkur Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6295 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is sister of Vitta Sayanna. He died. Fourth respondent is wife and respondents 5 and 6 are his children. The petitioner alleges that her brother was taken as illatom son-in-law[1] into the family of fourth respondent at Amdapur Village, Bhodan Mandal of Nizamabad District. Land admeasuring Acs.2.29 guntas in survey Nos.41/U and 87/2 of Kistapur village was owned by parents of the petitioner and Sayanna. She claims that her brother Sayanna sold an extent of Acs.3.00 belonging to family and executed a deed/settlement deed on 14.06.2004 in her favour in respect of Acs.1.29 guntas. Based on the same, she approached first respondent for alteration of record of rights as per Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity) and Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (hereafter called, the Rules). First respondent by proceedings in case No.RoR/212/07, dated 10.08.2007 purporting to act under Rule 9(1) of the Rules, ordered change of record of rights in favour of petitioner. Respondents 4 to 6 filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before second respondent. They denied succession claimed by petitioner and disputed the gift allegedly executed by their predecessor in title. By proceedings dated 04.09.2008, second respondent allowed the appeal on the ground that notice was not issued to the interested persons and that unregistered gift deed does not confer right on petitioner. Change in record of rights was set aside and first respondent was directed to take consequential action. Petitioner then preferred revision under Section 9 of the Act before third respondent. By impugned order, dated 30.12.2009, the revisional authority dismissed the revision confirming the order or second respondent. This writ petition is filed for an appropriate writ challenging the order of third respondent. The counsel for petitioner submits that copy of the grounds of appeal was not communicated by second respondent, that the first respondent conducted enquiry in the village in the presence of respondents 4 to 6, and ordered change in record of rights in favour of petitioner and that third respondent failed to exercise jurisdiction properly. With the assistance of learned counsel, this Court has perused the orders passed by original authority, appellate authority and revisional authority. The submissions made by petitioner are unsustainable. When petitioner preferred revision petition against the order of second respondent unsuccessfully, the order of appellate authority merged in the revisional order by application of doctrine of merger, RDO’s order does not survive and any appellate procedural lapses would not vitiate the order of Joint Collector. Before considering the question it is necessary to point out that when an appeal/revision is filed against the order of original authority, order of the original authority merges in appellate/ revisional authority. Any challenge, therefore, must be directed towards the order of the superior authority and not the original authority. The logic behind the principle of doctrine of merger is that if an appeal is provided against an order, it is decision of appellate authority also which is operative decision in law. Even when the appellate authority confirms the order of the lower authority it is only such decision, which is effective and can be enforced. Yet another reason is that there cannot be more than one operative order governing the same subject at a given point of time (see Kunhayammed v State of Kerala[2] and S.Shanmugavel Nadar v State of T.N.[3]). In Shanker v Krishna[4], the Supreme Court while observing that the doctrine of merger applies even to a revisional order, held as follows. Now when the aid of the High Court is invoked on the revisional side it is done because it is a superior Court and it can interfere for the purpose of rectifying the error of the Court below Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure circumscribed circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior Court. It is only one of the modes of exercising power conferred by the Statute; basically and fundamentally it is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, which is being invoked and exercised in a wider and larger sense. We do not, therefore, consider that the principle of merger of orders of inferior Courts in those of superior Courts would be affected or would become inapplicable by making a distinction between a petition for revision and an appeal. There cannot be any dispute that a gift deed required registration and attestation by two persons. Admittedly the gift deed relied on by petitioner was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- without registration. Therefore, it could not have been the basis for her claim. Further a perusal of proceedings of Tahsildar would show that petitioner did not produce the alleged gift deed executed by Sayanna in her favour. She claimed that Sayanna having gone on illatom (adopted son in law), she alone succeeds to the property. The alleged gift deed was produced for the first time before the appellate authority, which has been rightly disbelieved by appellate authority as well as revisional authority. If the property was succeeded by Sayanna, after his death, by operation of the Rules of Succession as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, respondents 4 to 6 as Class-I legal heirs would be entitled to property. In that view of the matter, the order passed by Joint Collector is unassailable. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any grave error apparent on the face of record. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.03.2010 Pln [1] See Ramanatha Iyer’s LAW LEXICON (1997 Edn.) pp.869: In Andhra Area, illatom son-in-law is a boy brought into family with a view to give a daughter in marriage and is customarily recognized as an heir in the absence of natural born son. [2] AIR 2000 SC 2587 = (2000) 6 SCC 359 [3] (2002) 8 SCC 361 [4] AIR 1970 SC 1