Heard Sri Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana) appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ch. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel representing the third respondent.

2. Sri Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners would contend that on a reading of nature of the order, which was made by the first respondent dated 12-8-1996, it is crystal clear that the first respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to make such an order since if the third respondent is aggrieved of the mutation of names or otherwise in records of rights or in the event of third respondent asserting his independent rights, the remedy of the third respondent is either to initiate appropriate proceedings under the relevant legislation before the competent authority or to institute a regular suit praying for declaration of rights as the case may be, but definitely not to make an application of this nature and inviting an order of this nature for which the first respondent is not competent purporting to exercise the powers under Rule 16(5) and (9) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (h