This Writ Petition is filed for a certiorari to call for the records relating to order dated 23-6-2014 of respondent No.2 in Case No.D1/1388/2014, whereby he has confirmed the order of respondent No.3 in Case No.C/1488/2014, dated 23-6-2014 and to quash the said orders.

The case of the petitioner is that Vadde Jangaiah and Vadde Sathaiah were paternal cousins; that apart from other properties, the said Jangaiah and Sathaiah owned agricultural land of Ac.4-00 in Sy.No.304 of Poppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal; that they shared the said land equally through settlement dated 27-2-1998 and consequently pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of Ac.2-00 each were issued; that after the death of Vadde Sathaiah, respondent Nos.9 to 11, being his wife and sons, inherited the said property; and that the names of respondent Nos.9 to 11 have been mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said property from 1997-98. That the petitioner has purchased Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.304/AA of Poppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal vide registered document No.5591/2005, dated 28-5-2005 from respondent Nos.9 to 11; that after his purchase, the said property has been mutated in the pahani as pattedar and occupant in File No.D/3237/2005, dated 6-9-2005, for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.

It is the further case of the petitioner that 17 years after mutation of the said land in favour of his vendors and nine years after mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the said property, Smt. Jangamma and other legal heirs of late Vadde Jangaiah - respondent Nos.5 to 8, filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971 (for short “the Act”), questioning the order of mutation dated 6-9-2005 in his favour, on the ground that late Vadde Jangaiah was the owner and possessor of the entire extent of Ac.4-00. The petitioner averred that after the death of Vadde Jangaiah, his wife i.e., respondent No.5, got her name mutated in respect of Ac.2-00 vide proceedings No.B/3617/2002, dated 4-9-2002 and also surrendered the passbook and title deed (Patta No.386 and Title deed No.352488) of her husband. That respondent Nos.5 to 8 failed to question the mutation effected in favour of Vadde Sathaiah as pattadar; and that they have questioned the consequential orders of mutation of the names of respondent Nos.9 to 11 in File No.D/6205/2004 in the place of late Vadde Sathaiah. That the subject land was clearly recorded in the name of late Vadde Sathaiah in Form-I Register, but subsequently the records were tampered and the extent of Ac.4-00 was interpolated against the name of late Vadde Jangaiah in the revenue records; and that respondent Nos.5 to 8 suppressed the fact that in the sale deed executed by them in favour of third parties they have shown the subject land as neighbour’s land. That respondent No.3/appellate authority, without supplying a copy of the remarks of respondent No.4 to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to contradict the same, has placed undue reliance on the said remarks, wherein a finding was recorded that mutation in respect of the subject land in favour of late Vadde Sathaiah was effected fraudulently. That respondent No.3/appellate authority hurriedly and without giving opportunity to the petitioner disposed of the said appeal on 30-5-2014 and set-aside the mutation both in his and his vendors’ favour in spite of there being no explanation offered by respondent Nos.5 to 8 for the delay of 17 years by way of filing an application for condoning the said delay; and that though he was transferred on 3-6-2014, respondent No.3 passed the order by ante-dating the same. That questioning the said order, the petitioner filed Revision Petition under Section 9 of the Act before respondent No.2 on 7-6-2014 along with an application seeking suspension of the order of respondent No.3; that respondent No.2 passed an order of status quo on the said application; and that in