THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 23417 of 2003 Oral order: In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 29.10.2003, passed by respondent No.1, namely the Joint Collector, Nizamabad. By the said order, respondent No.1 found fault with the action of respondent No.2, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad, in passing orders for transfer of the land in favour of one Maruthi Rao, who is the father of the petitioner, on the basis of unregistered deed on the ground that it was not regularized as required under Section 5-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and that the said transfer order was passed without notice to respondent No.3 herein. The petitioner states that his father and respondent No.3 purchased land in an extent of Acs. 4.18 in Sy. No. 209/A, Mubaraknagar, Nizamabad. That due to disputes between them, respondent No.3 executed a document dated 06.12.1975, relinquishing his right, title and interest in the property and also delivered possession of the property. The said document, the petitioner states is unregistered and insufficiently stamped. Based on the said document, the petitioner states that his father approached respondent No.2 for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Thereupon, respondent No.2, vide orders dated 05.05.1995, mutated his name in the revenue records. While so, seven years after the name of his father was recorded in the revenue records, the petitioner states that respondent No.3 filed revision before respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 questioning the order of mutation dated 05.05.1995 passed by respondent No.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of respondent No.1 in entertaining the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.2 after lapse of seven years from the ate of its passing is illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that the impugned order is passed without notice to the petitioner and behind his back. He further submitted that respondent No.1 having found that the mutation of the name of respondent No.3 in the revenue records by respondent No.2, was made without following the procedure, and having set aside the order passé by respondent No.2, ought to have remanded the matter to respondent No.2, and he committed an error in directing the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for getting his title dispute settled. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that since the petitioner’s father based on the fabricated document got his name mutated in the revenue records, which was done by respondent No.2 without issuing any notice, respondent No.1 has rightly set aside the order of respondent No.2, and no interference is warranted therewith Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. A perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 would disclose that respondent No.1, having entertained the revision filed by respondent No.3, came to the conclusion that the document is execute on plain paper and it is not clear whether the deed is a partition deed or gift deed, and that if it is to be treated as partition deed, it should be properly stamped under Article 40 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamps Act, as applicable in Andhra Pradesh and that the recording authority should record statements from all concerned and keep a proper and complete record of enquiry regarding the partition deed, and that if it is a gift deed, it should be registered under Section 17(1)(a) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 or it should be regularized under Section 5-A of the Act an then changes will have to be incorporate in the ROR Register, and that without following such procedure and without issuing any notice to respondent No.3, respondent No.2 had passed order of mutation. Having come to such conclusion, respondent No.1 set aside the mutation order passed by respondent No.2 and directed the petitioner’s father to approach the competent civil court and get the title dispute settled and then approach the authority under the Act for appropriate entries in the Record of Rights. Since respondent No.1 found that respondent No.2 passed the order of mutation without notice to the respondent, he having set aside the order of respondent No.2, ought to have remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for consideration of the matter afresh, and he committed an error in directing the parties to approach the competent civil court and then make request for mutation. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for considering the whole issue afresh in detail after issuing notice to the petitioner and after considering the explanation/objections/material, if any, to be filed by him, in support of his case, and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 26th August, 2010 KSR