IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10256 of 2008 Between: V. Krishna Reddy S/o. Dara Anjamma R/o.Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector-1, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Sol. Deputy Collector, & R.D.O. Chevella Division, R.R. District. 3 The M.R.O. Malkajgiri, R.R. District. 4 Kuthadi Mallesh S/o.Late Pedda Mallaiah R/o. Yapral Village,Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. 5 K. Ramesh S/o. Muthalu R/o. Yapral Village,Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. 6 K. Srinu S/o.LateK.Muthyalu R/o. Yapral Village,Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. 7 K. Devender S/o.LateK.Muthyalu R/o. Yapral Village,Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent in case No. D5/4707/2006 dt.5-1- 2008 as illegal, unjust arbitrary violative of Principles of Natural justice and also violative of Article 300-A of the Constituiton of India and accordingly set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 7: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10256 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioner assails the order dated 05.1.2008 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, whereby and whereunder the revision petition filed by petitioner and one Smt.D.Jayamma, was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that rights of parties have already been decided by Civil Court in two suits being O.S.No.23 of 1961 and O.S.No.61 of 1964. Brief fact of the matter, as disclosed in the affidavit accompanying writ petition, is as follows. Petitioner is grandson of Dara Babaiah. Grandfather and one Dara Pentaiah are statedly owners of land in survey No.49 admeasuring Acs.12.31 guntas likely known as Cherlameedibavy. It is alleged that their names were entered in revenue records recognizing them as pattadars. In 1964, father of fourth respondent and grandfather of respondents 5 and 6 filed O.S.No.61 of 1964 on the file of the Court of Munsif Magistrate, North East, for a direction to insert their names in column No.11 of pahani in respect of the land. The same was decreed on 01.7.1964. Petitioner however contends that whole proceedings in the suit are suspicious. Based on the decree, third respondent by proceedings dated 01.10.1992, entered the name of father of fourth respondent as pattadar. Subsequently by proceedings dated 07.5.2004, third respondent issued another proceedings for record of rights in favour of contesting respondents. Aggrieved by the proceedings of third respondent, petitioner and another filed appeal before second respondent, which was dismissed on 25.6.2006. They then filed revision under Section 11 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, and mutation was effected without notice to petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings of third respondent, which were challenged before second respondent, are unsustainable as they violate principles of natural justice. Petitioner claims to be legal heir of Dara Babaiah, who is alleged to be original pattadar. Even according to petitioner, name of his grandfather, Dara Babaiah, was shown in pahanis after 1960-1961. In 1964, father of fourth respondent filed O.S.No.61 of 1964 for removing name of Dara Pentaiah, who is admittedly none other than cousin of Dara Babaiah. The same was decreed directing to enter the name of Kuthadi Mallaiah, (father of fourth respondent) as pattadar in column No.11. This is the proceedings before third respondent, who admittedly passed orders on 01.10.1992 and on 07.5.2004 in favour of predecessors of respondents 4 to 7. As rightly concluded by first respondent, records of rights maintained by revenue authorities are subject to declaratory decrees passed by Civil Court. This principle is adumbrated under Section 8(2) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity). Therefore, the impugned order is unexceptionable. Section 5(5) of the Act provides for appeal to jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of order. As found by first respondent, petitioner preferred appeal after a period of thirty days and appeal itself is clearly barred by time. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) November 26, 2008 YS To 1 The Joint Collector-1, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Sol. Deputy Collector, & R.D.O. Chevella Division, R.R. District. 3 The M.R.O. Malkajgiri, R.R. District. 4. Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. Two C.D. Copies.