ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records of the 1st respondent containing the impugned proceedings Case No. C3/district collector/rev/6/89 dated 13-8-1990 and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

( 2 ) IT is stated by the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac. 6. 25 guntas of land out of survey Nos. 43, 188, 189 and 190 of malkapuram village, Ramannapet Mandal of Nalgonda District and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment as owner of the said lands and his name is also recorded in the village Records for the last over 20 years. In the year 1975-76, the revenue Divisional Officer being the jamabandi Officer, also approved the mutation of the said lands in his name.

( 3 ) IT is further stated that some time in the year 1988 the respondents 2 to 7 herein tried to interfere with his possession of the said land without having any right, title and interest therein. Hence he filed a Civil Suit in O. S. No. 846 of 1988 in the Court of the district Munsif, Ramannapet for perpetual injunction and pending the said suit, he also obtained interim injunction against the respondents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the said land vide order dated 15-11-1988 made in i. A. No. 477 of 1988 in O. S. No. 846 of 1988 and the said injunction is still in tact. Thereafter the respondents 2 to 7 filed a suit against him O. S. No. 7 of 1989 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nalgonda for a declaration of their title in respect of suit lands and for perpetual injunction and both the suits are pending.

( 4 ) IT is further stated that in the second suit i. e. , in O. S. No. 7 of 1989 filed by the respondents 2 to 7, the respondents 2 to 7 have specifically prayed for correction of the Jamabandi records showing the names of the respondents 2 to 7 as owners. Therefore, the said relief is the subject matter of the said suit. But contrary to the settled principles of law, the respondents 2 to 7 herein have filed a petition before the first respondent purporting to be a Revision under Section 166-B of the Hyderabad Land revenue Act, 1317 Fasli to revise the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer in entry nos. 21 and 20 of 1975-76 mutating the lands in his name and the first respondent has now passed the impugned order purporting to exercise the jurisdiction under 166-B of the Hyderabad Land revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. Assailing the said order, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner contending that, when the respondents 2 to 7 have filed a suit in o. S. No. 7 of 1989, they should not have approached the Revisional authority under section 9 of the the A. P. Record of Rights in lands Act, 1971. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that mutation of the said land in the revenue records was done in the year 1975-76 in his name, and the respondents 2 to 7 have filed the revision in the year 1989 i. e. , after a lapse of 15 years and therefore, the District collector ought not to have entertained the revision petition. The reasons given by the respondents in the revision petition for condonation of delay are altogether unreasonable and liable to be rejected.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned government Pleader submits that there is no bar in entertaining the revision petition by the revisional authority, when a suit is pending in the civil Court. Therefore, he contended that the District Collector has rightly entertained the revision petition and passed appropriate orders, which are in accordance with law.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader further contends that the respondents 2 to 7 have given their explanation for the delay in approaching the Revisional authority stating that at the time of mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue record in the year 1975-76, they were minors and they got the knowledge of this mutation in the year 1978 only. Therefore, accepting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document