THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1091 of 2010 ORDER: On an application submitted by the petitioners herein, the Tahsildar, Mandamarri Mandal, the 1st respondent, issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in the year 2004-2005, in respect of land admeasuring Acs.21.21 guntas, in survey Nos.383/1 and 384 of Mandamarri Village & Mandal, Adilabad District. The 4th respondent submitted a representation before the 1st respondent, stating that he is the owner and possessor of the land and that his name continued in the revenue records up to 2000-01, as pattadar, and thereafter, the name of the pattadar and enjoyer was changed, on the basis of the alleged succession in favour of the petitioners herein, vide proceedings, dated 22.05.2005. He alleged that the petitioners misrepresented initial “K”, which is the abbreviation of “Kalakuntal”, as “Kore”, which is the surname of the petitioners, and have played fraud. The 1st respondent submitted a report before the 2nd respondent, and taking the same into account and after issuing notices to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal, through order, dated 16.01.2010. He has set aside the proceedings, dated 22.05.2005, issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The 4th respondent felt aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land, referred to above. He, no doubt, has approached the 1st respondent himself. However, as the 1st respondent is not competent to pass any orders vis-à-vis the proceedings, dated 22.05.2005, he referred the matter to the 2nd respondent. This, obviously, was taken up as an appeal under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The appeal was allowed, after hearing both the parties. Though the petitioners have urged several grounds, while challenging the impugned order, this Court is of the view that they have to avail the remedy of revision, provided to the Joint Collector, the 3rd respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of revision against the orders, dated 16.01.2010, passed by the 2nd respondent. The Registry is directed to return the original of the said order to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.27-01-2010. GJ