AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) WE have heard Sri D. V. Sitarama Murthy for appellant, Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar for respondent No. 4 and the Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondents 1 to 3.

( 2 ) THE writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dated 21-2-2002 disposing of Writ Petition No. 3405 of 2002 filed by the appellants herein and directing the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to complete enquiry and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Insofar as the contention raised by the appellants/writ petitioners that the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has no right, authority or jurisdiction to conduct any enquiry is concerned, the learned single Judge left open that point to be raised before the same authority, viz. , Revenue Divisional Officer.

( 3 ) IN this case, according to the appellants, they are the pattadars, owners and possessors of Ac. 6. 21 guntas and Ac. 4. 20 guntas out of Survey No. 394/aa respectively situated at Gumpena village, Chandrugonda Mandal of Khammam District and their names are recorded as pattadars and possessors of the said land in all the revenue records. According to the appellants, the fourth respondent, B. Appi Reddy, gave a representation to the first respondent-District Collector contending that he has got Ac. 7. 20 guntas of land in said survey number and requested for entering his name alleging that revenue officials tampered the records. The first respondent forwarded the said representation to the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer directing him to take it as appeal. The second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer numbered the said representation as ROR appeal No. A3211/98 under Section 5 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short "the Act" ). According to the appellants, the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer suo motu passed interim order on 22-8-1998 in violation of principles of natural justice and without authority suspending the patta pass books, title deeds and Form 13 (B) of the appellants in respect of the said land. On 22-10-1998 the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer again suo motu passed another interim order, purporting to be relying upon an enjoyment survey report of third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, withdrawing earlier order dated 22-8-1998 holding that the fourth respondent appears to be in possession of Ac. 5. 16 guntas in the said survey number without serving any notice before the said survey, without serving even a copy of said report and in violation of principles of natural justice and without authority. On 30-1-1999, the second respondent again suo motu passed another interim order withdrawing his earlier order dated 29-10-1998 holding that his earlier order dated 22-8-1998 shall continue to be in force till the disposal of ROR appeal. Against the said action of the second respondent in entertaining the representation of fourth respondent as ROR appeal, the appellants herein filed writ petition No. 3405 of 2002 on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge as noticed earlier.

( 4 ) SRI D. V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that taking up the representation of the fourth respondent as ROR appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act and its continuation by the second respondent is an abuse of process of law as the Act does not confer any such authority on the second respondent, viz. , Revenue Divisional Officer. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has got only appellate jurisdiction, that too under Section 5 (5) and 5 (B) of the Act only, and Rules 21 and 22-A of the A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules") prescribe the procedure and the manner in which the appeals u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document