B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14-2-1990 passed by the District Revenue Officer in his proceedings No. B2/8102/89. The District Revenue Officer is the 1st respondent while the 2nd respondent is the person at whose instance the said impugned order has been passed. The 2nd respondent had filed a petition for correction of revenue records before the 1st respondent The 1st respondent did not conduct any enquiry on his own, but called for a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and accepted the case of the 2nd respondent and directed the correction of the revenue records. The writ petitioner states that the same was ex parte without notice to him and without conducting any enquiry and contending so, he filed a petition to set aside the order dated 14-6-1988. But the same was rejected by order dated 31-8-1989. The petitioner then filed a review petition before the 1st respondent pleading several grounds. The copy of the review petition is filed among the material papers. It is stated that the review petition is still pendingconsideration and that is obvious from a reading of, the impugned order dated 14-2-1990. The said order is, thus, extracted:"the Respondent through his counsel has filed a petition stating that the appellant in Case No. B2/8102/89 have filed Review Petition against the order of District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad District dt. 31-8-1989. During the pendency of the case, the petitioners are interfering with the possession and started construction activitv over the subject lands. Heard the argument of the Counsel for the respondent and the circumstances stated by the Counsel for Respondent, the Review petitioners are directed not to interfere or start construction activity over the land till the finalisation of the case by this Court. "

( 2 ) MR. C. Malla Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that while the review petition is pending, the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to, entertain a petition at the instance of the 2nd respondent for granting the relief of injunction. It is his further contention that the 1st respondent is not clothed with the powers of granting such injunction orders and that the said powers are vested only with the civil Court. I agree with his contention. The 1st respondent who is an authority under the Records of Rights Regulation is empowered only to look into the correctness or other wise of the entries in the revenue records and if they are found to be erroneous, he may correct the same and if the finding is otherwise, he may reject the application. In no event, the 1st respondent, or for that reason any revenue officer acting under -the Record of Rights Regulation, has got any power to issue injunction orders restraining the other party from interfering with the possession. The said orders are the abuse of the process of. law as there is total lack of jurisdiction in the 1st respondent. It is ununderstandable as to how the 1st respondent in a review petition filed by the petitioner, that too at the instance of the 2nd respondent who is also the respondent in the review petition, can pass an injunction order even assuming that such an application by the 2nd respondent is maintainable, usurping the powers of the Civil Court.

( 3 ) THE Writ Petition is allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/ -.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document