These two writ petitions arise out of common order in D.Dis.H/701/2011, dated 13.05.2013, of the Revenue Divisional Officer, YSR Kadapa District.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.16891 of 2013.

3. The petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6 are siblings. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother, by name, Salemma, has purchased Acs.4.85 cents of land in Survey No.1008 of Chemalacheruvu Palli Village, Galiveedu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District (for short ‘the subject land’) under two registered sale deeds, dated 13.03.1965 and 16.11.1970, from Shaik Masthan Sab and Tirumala Konda Venkatappa respectively. That the petitioner’s mother executed a Will on 11.05.1971 in his favour and died in the year 1972. That thereafter the name of the petitioner was mutated by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1990.

4. S.Venugopala Chari, the husband of respondent No.6, approached the District Collector under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the RTI Act’) for supply of information relating to the pattadar pass books pertaining to the subject land. The said application was referred by the District Collector to respondent No.3 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Respondent No.3 has in turn submitted his report, dated 09.06.2011, to respondent No.2. The said report was evidently treated as appeal by respondent No.2 and after issuing notices to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.4 to 6, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order.

5. It is the case of respondent Nos.4 to 6 that their father has executed a registered gift deed, dated 12.09.1988, jointly in their favour in respect of the subject land and that on coming to know that the pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner, they have approached the District Collector under the RTI Act and that consequently, the said petition was treated as an appeal by respondent No.2. It is thus the plea of respondent Nos.4 to 6 that on the strength of the registered gift deed, they have succeeded to the property and the petitioner has no title over the same.

6. I have carefully perused the order of respondent No.2.

7. In his order, respondent No.2 instead of dealing with the respective claims of the parties pursued a totally different approach by dwelling into the issue as to whether the subject land was a Government land or a private patta land. Respondent No.2 has solely relied upon the report submitted by respondent No.3, wherein he has stated that the RSR of the village contains ‘dots’ under the relevant column and therefore the land is a Government land. In that view of the matter, respondent No.2 has directed respondent No.3 to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds informing both the parties that further action will be initiated by the revenue authorities subject to the outcome of the issue pending before this Court pertaining to the effect of ‘dots’ in RSR. As both the parties felt aggrieved by this order, they have filed these writ petitions.

8. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2 has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in him, as he is not empowered to treat the report of the Tahsildar submitted to him on the application filed by the husband of respondent No.6 under the RTI Act as an appeal and examine the title over the subject land. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has committed a patent illegality in setting aside the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner on a completely erroneous assumption that the land is a Government land based on RSR ‘dots’.

9. Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel, representing Smt. G.Uma Devi, learned for respondent Nos.4 to 6, while endorsing the submission of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, to the extent of respondent No.2 holding that