HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 6777 OF 2009. DATED 22nd February, 2011. BETWEEN Buddasetti Narasimhulu …Petitioner and The Tahsildar, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool District and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 6777 OF 2009. ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order of the third respondent-revisional authority dated 10.4.2007 in proceedings Rc.No.E2/1908/2006, confirming the order of the second respondent-appellate authority, whereby the pattadar pass books issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer-first respondent in favour of the fourth and fifth respondents, were cancelled. In the manner in which this Writ Petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to record facts in great detail. It will suffice to note that, the forth respondent and his brother succeeded to the land assigned to their parents to an extent of Ac.7.26 cents comprised in Sy.Nos. 1247/2B, 1247/3A and 1247/3C of T.Lingam Dinne village, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool District. Out of the said total extent of assigned land, the fourth respondent sold away an extent of Ac.5.00 to the petitioner under a sale deed dated 5.2.2005. Be that as it may, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the fifth respondent in respect of the very same subject land. The second respondent vide his order dated 23.10.2004 allowed the appeal and cancelled the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the fifth respondent. Questioning the said cancellation order, the fifth respondent filed revision before the third respondent-Joint Collector, who in turn, remanded the matter to the second respondent, directing to dispose of the appeal afresh after issuing notice to the fifth respondent. The second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, after conducting de novo enquiry, by order dated 22.5.2006 cancelled the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the fifth respondent as well as the fourth respondent. Questioning the said order, fourth and fifth respondents as well as the petitioner filed their respective revisions before the third respondent-Joint Collector. By order impugned in this Writ Petition, the third respondent dismissed all the three revisions, upholding the order of the second respondent. Fourth respondent filed counter affidavit, wherein it is specifically pleaded that the impugned order was the subject matter of adjudication in Writ Petition No. 17265 of 2008 being filed by him and this Court set aside the same by an order dated 11.2.2009 passed in the said Writ Petition and therefore, this Writ Petition is not maintainable in law in view of the doctrine of merger inasmuch as the impugned order has already merged in the order of this Court dated 11.2.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 17265 of 2008 It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that third respondent-revisional authority did not consider the revision filed by the petitioner in its proper perspective. He submitted that third respondent, except referring to the report of the first respondent and the order of the second respondent, did not record any specific finding in adjudicating the revision petition. He further submitted that this Court while adjudicating Writ Petition No. 17265 of 2008, which was filed by the fourth respondent questioning the very same impugned order, rejected the application for impleadment of the petitioner and therefore, it necessitated for the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition. The learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the same. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent and having gone through the case file, I find force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent. The order of the third respondent-revisional authority dated 10.04.2007, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, having already got merged in the order of this Court dated 08.08.2008, the former ceased to exist thereafter and therefore the present Writ Petition for adjudication of the very same order is totally misconceived. The apex Court in its authoritative pronouncement in Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Kerala and another {(2006)6 SCC 359} while dealing with the doctrine of merger, observed that the logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject matter at a given point of time, that when a decree or order passed by an inferior Court, tribunal or authority is subjected to a remedy available under the law before a superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy and that once the superior Court has disposed of the lis before it either way—whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior Court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the Court, tribunal or the authority below. It was further observed that the said doctrine is, however, not of universal or unlimited application and its applicability has to be determined keeping in view the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject matter of the challenge. The said doctrine postulates merger of the subordinate forum’s decision in the decision of the superior forum, modifying, reversing or affirming such decision and thereafter, only the latter and not the former exists in the eye of law. Inasmuch as the nature of jurisdiction exercised by this Court and the content or subject matter of challenge, are one and the same, the doctrine of merger clearly applies to the facts of the case on hand. In view of the decision of the apex Court, supra, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. With regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as noted supra, it is well settled that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution, will not re- appreciate the evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings recorded therefor, unless and until some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found in reaching the conclusion by the lower authorities. Having perused the order impugned, I find no error or mistake on the face of the order impugned, in reaching the conclusion by the authorities below. For the foregoing discussion, I see no merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 22nd February, 2011. Msnro