Revenue authorities are not substitutes for courts of competent civil jurisdiction.

The issue in the present writ petition arises under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short the Act).

The present writ petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing No.D5/3020/2008 dated 01.08.2009 of the 1st respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the judgments rendered by the competent civil Court and consequently set aside the same.

Though the petitioner prayed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, the prayer is considered as Writ of Certiorari, inasmuch as the petitioner assails the order dated 01.08.2009 of 1st respondent under Section 9 of the Act. Through the order impugned, the 1st respondent allowed the revision and set aside the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R East Division in file No.A2/820/2007 dated 11.04.2008.

The parties have been pursuing the legal remedies before the revenue authorities as well as the competent civil Court. The averments, prayers etc., of parties before revenue authority and civil Court are stated separately.

The subject matter of present writ petition is an extent of Ac.7-20 gts in Sy.No.223 of Pocharam Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R. District.

The controversy between parties is stated in great detail by 2nd respondent in his order dated 11.04.2008. As there is no controversy on these averments, I consider them briefly.

Smt. Baddam Narasamma and her son B. Laxma Reddy purchased the petition land through registered sale deed dated 10.06.1986 (Regd. No.1650/86). On 17.06.1991, the said Laxma Reddy executed gift deed in favour of his mother B. Narasamma. B. Narasamma thus became owner of entire extent. B. Laxma Reddy is the father of respondents 4 and 5 and B. Narasamma is their paternal grandmother. It is further averred that on 10.10.1991.

B. Narasamma executed an unregistered gift deed in favour of respondents 4 and 5, who were minors then. At the instance of respondents 4 and 5, an application under Section 5-A of the Act was made for regularization of unregistered gift deed and for issuance of Form 13-B certificate. The same was taken on file as ROR/2729/91. Through order dated 15.12.1991 read with 24.06.1992, 3rd respondent regularized the gift deed in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and issued form 13-B certificate to them.

B. Narasamma being aggrieved by the regularization order of 3rd respondent filed appeal before 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent through order dated 28.04.1993 while setting aside the regularization in favour of respondents 4 and 5 remitted the matter to 3rd respondent for de novo enquiry and decide the dispute after affording fair opportunity to both parties. Through order dated 25.06.1993, the 3rd respondent refused the request of respondents 4 and 5 for regularization of unregistered gift deed dated 10.10.1991. This time it became the turn of respondents 4 and 5 to file appeal against the order dated 25.06.1993 of 3rd respondent. Accordingly, an appeal was filed in File No.B/645/93. On 30.10.1993, the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal filed by respondents 4 and 5 and confirmed the order of Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) dated 25.06.1993. Respondents 4 and 5 carried the matter by way of revision before the 1st respondent. On 25.09.1995, the 1st respondent allowed the revision filed by respondents 4 and 5 and set aside the orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents dated 30.10.1993 and 25.06.1993 respectively. With the issuance of orders by 1st respondent, consequential steps for entry of their names in revenue record was taken up. B. Narasamma, it is alleged that through registered sale deed dated on 20.04.1995, has sold the petition land in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner having come to know the order of Joint Collector dated 25.09.1995 filed W.P.No.29480 of 1995. This Court through order dated 22.11.2001 directed the MRO to reconsider the matter after giving notice to parties and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

The re