THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.411 of 2008 Dated:19.08.2010 Between: Yaramala Nagireddy, And another. ….Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.411 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are aggrieved by the notice dated 10.12.2007 issued by the second respondent, namely, the Special Collector – cum – Revenue Divisional Officer, calling upon the petitioners to attend enquiry for cancellation of pattadar pass books. Contending that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no such suo motu powers under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act), the present writ petition is filed. Counsel for the petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) do not dispute that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Thota Narasinga Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh[1], wherein this Court held as under. There cannot be any manner of doubt that suo motu exercise of powers by the RDO would be ex facie illegal. Whether Rule 13(2) of the Rules can save the situation? In the counter affidavit filed by second respondent, it is admitted that the report sent by the MRO on the representation submitted by the fourth respondent was treated as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. Without anything else, it must be held that the exercise was ex facie illegal. Rule 13(2) of the Rules also does not confer any power to cancel PPB/td. In exercise of their general powers of supervision, MRO, RDO, Deputy Collector, DRO and the Collector of the District are conferred the power ‘to test and revise the entries in the confirmed record of rights’. The term ‘record of rights’ is defined under Section 2(9) as to mean ‘records prepared and maintained under the provisions or for the purpose of the Act’, whereas ‘title deed and pass book’ means, the title deeds and pass books issued under Section 6-A of the Act. As the “title deed and pass book” do not find a mention in Rule 13(2) of the Rules, it is not possible to accept the submission that the RDO can suo motu cancel the ppb/td. Following the above, the writ petition is allowed holding that the second respondent cannot exercise suo motu revisional powers or suo motu appellate powers under the provisions of the Act. It shall, however, be open to exercise such powers by the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19.08.2010 vs [1] 2007 (1) ALD 500