These two writ petitions pertain to the common subject matter and hence, they are heard and disposed of together.

W.P.No.19519 of 2010 is filed feeling aggrieved by order in D.Dis.No.2444/08 H, dated 16.04.2010, of respondent No.1. W.P.No.23254 of 2012 is filed by respondent No.3 in W.P.No.19519 of 2010 for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not mutating his name in the revenue records. The petitioner sought for a further direction to issue pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour with regard to Ac.0.57 cents of land in Survey No.971/6 of East Bapatla, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject property’).

For convenience, the parties are referred to they are arrayed in W.P.No.19519 of 2010.

The brief facts leading to filing of these two writ petitions are as under:

The subject property was purchased by the grandfather of the petitioners on 04.01.1958. The petitioners pleaded that after the death of their grandfather, the subject property devolved upon their father and pattadar pass book and title deed were issued to him. That in the year 1992, oral partition took place among the family members and that the subject property fell to the share of the petitioners. That in the year 1995, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to the petitioners under patta Nos.353 and 354 respectively. That much after the partition, the petitioners’ father executed two registered gift deeds, dated 26.12.2001, in favour of his two daughters (sisters of the petitioners). That on 16.07.2005, the two sisters of the petitioners executed two registered sale deeds in favour of respondent No.3 selling the subject property.

It is the further pleaded case of the petitioners that as respondent No.3 started claiming the subject property under the two registered deeds, they have filed O.S.No.104 of 2005 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla for declaration of title and permanent injunction or alternatively for partition and separate possession of the property and allotment of 1/3rd share of the property to each of the petitioners and their father. While the said suit is pending, respondent No.3 has approached respondent No.1 by way of a representation for issue of pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the subject property. As no action was taken thereon, he has filed W.P.No.24152 of 2009 in this Court for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in considering his application/representation, dated 25.09.2009, for grant of pattadar pass book and title deed by mutating his name in the revenue records. This Court by order, dated 19.11.2009, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation of respondent No.3 and pass an appropriate order.After disposal of the writ petition, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order, whereunder he has got an enquiry held by respondent No.2 and rendered a finding that the petitioners have created fake pattadar pass books. While ordering cancellation of the pattadar pass book and title deed, respondent No.2 has also ordered initiation of criminal proceedings against the persons responsible for creating the fake pass books and tampering the entries in 1B Register. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.19519 of 2010. As the said order of respondent No.2 is not implemented, respondent No.3 filed W.P.No.23254 of 2012 for its implementation.

I have heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.23254 of 2012 and Mrs.S.Annapurna, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.19519 of 2010.

Apart from arguing the case on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submitted that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the representation of respondent No.3 and pass the impugned order. I find force in this submission of