Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.

1. Petitioner seeks to question the order of the third respondent in Proceedings No. B/1589/2014 dated 29.5.2015 wherein the mutation relating to Acs. 5.00 guntas in Sy. No. 586 of Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was ordered in favour the fourth respondent under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act (for short 'the Act'). Though the said order on the face of it is appealable under the Act, in view of the contention of the petitioner that he had no notice of passing the said order, I had heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on 24.8.2015 and after hearing the matter, the learned Government Pleader was required to get instructions. Petitioner Counsel also sought time to verify, hence, the writ petition is posted to today.

2. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the petitioner had no notice of passing of the aforesaid order by the Tahsildar, he points out that the petitioner had filed implead petition opposing the request of the fourth respondent and since the Tahsildar had hurriedly reserved the matter without giving opportunity to the petitioner, he had approached the Collector by way of application dated 27.7.2015 on which the Collector had endorsed the Tahsildar to take appropriate action if found correct and re-open the hearing. Accordingly, the matter is stated to have been re-opened. However, the petitioner Counsel states that he was not aware of the same and came to know of the impugned order much later, as the order was also not marked to him."

3. I find difficult to accept the said contention in view of the specific para in the impugned order, which records about the presence of the petitioner, the said relevant para is extracted hereunder:

"The other Sr. Syed Raheemuddin who impleaded and attended the case in number of times, during the enquiry of the case which is under enquiry sine 1(sic) years has filed affidavit on 27.7.2014 requesting this authority to re-open of the case as final chance for filing counter-affidavit. Accordingly the case has been re-open and fixed for final enquiry on 7.2.2015 issuing notices to all the concerned for filing counter-affidavit and also arguments by both the parties. But the individual who requested for re-open of the case has not attended the case on the said enquiry and also not filed counter-affidavit in the case. For which it is clearly shows that the individual has not have any interest and voluntarily knowing all the issues in the matter avoiding to defend the case within an intention to prolong the case and not to final the issue."

4. What is recorded in the order cannot be disputed by the petitioner before a superior Court in view of the ratio of the Supreme Court in the following decisions. In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another, (1982) 2 SCC 463, the Supreme Court held in Paras 4 to 8 as follows,

"4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation". Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramctnian, AIR 1926 PC 136. We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in Court. We cannot allow the statement of the judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other ev