In this writ petition, the memo dated 10.12.2011 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District whereunder a direction was issued to incorporate the name of one Yatham Pochayya, S/o. Jangaiah in the possession column of Pahani for the year 1999-2000 against Survey No.63 admeasuring Ac.8.06 gts and odd at Nadergul village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy.

2. As per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner is the owner of the land in Sy.No.63/A over an extent of Ac.8.08 gts., of Nadergul village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the same is the petitioner’s ancestral property. An extent of Ac.4.04 gts in Sy.No.63/AA and an extent of Ac.4.04 gts in Sy.No.63/E was the land acquired by the petitioner by purchase vide registered sale deed dated 23.8.1999. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.788 of 1999 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District seeking a perpetual injunction against the respondents 3 to 7 in the writ petition who are the legal heirs of Yatham Pochaiah, S/o. Jangaiah and an interim injunction was granted on 20.7.1999. Another suit O.S.No.1293 of 2001 was filed in respect of the properties purchased by the petitioner and initially an interim injunction was granted on 5.11.2011, but the same was vacated on 31.3.2003. However, the injunction was restored vide orders in C.M.A.No.91 of 2003 on 3.2.2005. As a matter of fact, suits were decreed on 30.9.2011. In the course of trial of the suits, the respondents produced the memo of Pahani for the year 19992000 showing the name of Yatham Pochaiah in possession column as a common evidence vide Ex.B.11 in both O.S.Nos.788 of 1999 and 1293 of 2001. Even as per the certified copy of Pahani dated 22.12.2011 for the year 1999-2000, petitioner’s name appears as possessor over an extent of Ac.16.16 gts in Sy.Nos.63/A, 63/AA and 63/E. The memo was produced in O.S.No.788 of 1999 and O.S.No.1293 of 2001. For the first time, petitioner came to be aware of the said memo and as the same is being used as evidence in Civil proceedings, petitioner is constrained to approach this Court questioning the said memo. It is stated that the pattadar pass book No.861 was issued in favour of the petitioner and a copy of the same was filed before this Court.

3. In the writ petition the memo is assailed on the following grounds:

a) That principles of natural justice not complied as such it is a nullity.

b) Under Section 3(3) of Record of Rights Act, 1971, power to rectify entry in record is once year from the date of notification under sub-section 2 of Section 3 as such it is without jurisdiction.

c) No enquiry as contemplated by law is conducted.

d) That the exercise of power is highly belated.

e) That the jurisdictional fact is neither determined prior to exercise of power and as such it is a clear case of non application of mind, further it apparently discloses lack of bona fides.

f) That the said act is without authority of law.

g) That when Civil Court is already seized of the matter, the unofficial respondent in collusion with the Official respondent, interfered with the administration of justice, despite the fact that the impugned memo was suspended

h) That application of Yatham Pochaiah lacks bona fides and is clearly a case of suppression of material facts, as such it is a clear case of fraud.

4. On 16.6.2011 a counter-affidavit sworn by Yatham Anjaiah, S/o. late Yatham Pochaiah was filed on behalf of the respondents 3 to 7. It has been stated that the petitioner has got his name incorporated in the year 1999-2000 by playing fraud under the possessor column and issuance of pattadar pass book was denied. It is further stated that late Pochaiah’s name has been entered into revenue records after conducting enquiry by the Revenue Inspector and Mandal Revenue Officer has issued the impugned memo incorporating the name of his father. Writ petition is not maintainable as there is an alt