1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing order dt.5.10.2002 passed by Respondent No.1.

2. Heard Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M. Balasubrahmanyam, learned Counsel representing respondent Nos.3 and 4. No one appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2 nor any record has been produced on their behalf.

3. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of respondent No.4 as he has married the latter’s sister. The property in question was owned by one Gundu Atchanna, father-in-law of respondent No.3 and grand-father of respondent No.4. Prior to 1994, the name of Atchanna was existing in the revenue record as the owner and possessor of the land. After his demise, the name of the petitioner was entered in the record of rights by respondent No.2 in the year 1994. According to the petitioner, he was brought up by Gundu Atchanna from the age of ten years and given his grand-daughter, i.e., daughter of late Suryanarayana in marriage. It is his further case that in the family partition that has taken place, the lands in question were given to him. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are not residing in the village where the lands are situated, approached respondent No.1 in April, 2001 with a revision petition against correction of entries in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner. It is stated in the revision petition that respondent No.3, being daughter-in-law of Gundu Atchanna and her husband having died, succeeded to the property along with respondent No.4 and that the petitioner approached respondent No.2, who corrected the entries in the revenue record by entering the petitioner’s name without any notice to her and respondent No.4 and that it was also specifically pleaded that respondent No.2 corrected the entries in the revenue record without making any enquiry whatsoever and that only recently she came to know about the said fact when she visited the village. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 also pleaded that on the basis of the wrong entries made in the revenue record, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner.

4. Respondent No.1 entertained the said revision petition and issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his objections by way of a counter affidavit wherein he pleaded that he succeeded to the property as the share of Atchanna was allotted to him. Respondent No.1 called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) wherein it was reported that the property in question is an ancestral property which fell to the share of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as per the settlement fair adangal of Bantupalli Village, that the petitioner, who is son-in-law of Suryanarayana and who was brought up by the family of Atchanna, was looking after the lands on behalf of the members of the family and that during final check operations, the petitioner by misrepresentation managed to get the lands mutated in his favour and on the basis of the said correction of entries, the pattadar pass books were given to the petitioner. The MRO also opined that there was no documentary evidence to show that the land belongs to the writ petitioner and that the title and possession of the lands were with respondent Nos.3 and 4.

5. Before respondent No.1, the petitioner raised an objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 without first availing the remedy of appeal. This objection was overruled by respondent No.1 and having regard to the report submitted by the MRO, he allowed the revision petition. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the said order.

6. At the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the revision petition filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 without availing the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar