These two writ petitions have been filed with identical grievance against the same proceeding of the Joint Collector (J), Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Joint Collector’).

There is a serious dispute among the petitioners in these writ petitions and the private respondents with respect to the land in Survey No.69 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Based on the preliminary decree, dated 29.12.2000, in O.S.No.38 of 1993, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District filed for partition, the private respondents have approached the Joint Collector invoking his revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) for mutation of their names in the record of rights. Though the petitioners in either of the writ petitions were not made parties to the revision petition, the petitioners in W.P.No.8958 of 2013 filed their objections, both on merits and also on the maintainability of the revision petition before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector by the impugned order, while holding that the private respondents are entitled for mutation of their names in the records of rights as pattadars for the patta land in Survey No.69 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in terms of the civil Court’s decree, directed the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District to take necessary action on the claim of the private respondents for effecting mutation as per the decree of the civil Court duly following the procedure and protecting the Government’s interest, if any.

The learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions have questioned the impugned order on two grounds, namely, (1) that the very revision petition itself is not maintainable as the private respondents have not approached the primary authority i.e., the Tahsildar, Serilingampally under Section 4 of the Act and that therefore, there was no occasion for the private respondents to approach the Joint Collector by invoking his revisional jurisdiction and (2) that even on merits, no rights of the parties have been finally adjudicated in the civil suit, as the basis for the claim of the private respondents for mutation of their names in the revenue records was a preliminary decree in a partition suit and that unless final decree allotting properties by dividing by metes and bounds is passed, the rights of the private respondents will not be crystallised and that on such inchoate rights, the private respondents cannot claim mutation.

Sri D.V.Sitarama Murthy and Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respective private respondents, have seriously opposed the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Apropos the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Act prescribed specific procedure for amendment of the record of rights. The provisions which are relevant for these cases need to be discussed.

Section 4 of the Act envisages that if any person acquires any right as owner by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a Court or otherwise, he shall intimate in writing the fact of his acquisition of such right to the Mandal Revenue Officer (presently, Tahsildar) within ninety days from the date of such acquisition, and the said Officer shall give or send a written acknowledgement of such intimation to the person making it.

Section 5 of the Act has laid down procedure for considering such intimation. It envisages issue of a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why amendment should not be carried out. The copy of the amendment and