1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 31.12.2010 of the 2nd respondent (the Joint Collector, Medak at Saga Reddy) in Case No. F3/7799/2006-F3/42/ ROR/06 confirming the order dated 15.07.2006 in Case No. A3/1734/2006 of the 3rd respondent (The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Medak district), canceling the pattedar pass books of petitioners.

2. The petitioners are legal heirs of Dr. E.B. Christian alias Dr. Naidu.

3. It is not in dispute that a registered sale deed was executed in favour of Dr. Naidu on 7th Ahaban 1345 Fasli [7th September, 1935 A.D.] in respect of Acs. 34.23 guntas in Survey No. 326 and Acs. 25.00 guntas in Survey No. 310 situated at Khasba Akhali, now known as Zaheerabad.

4. Alleging that under a Will dated 09.03.1960 executed by the said Dr. Naidu, they inherited the property, the petitioners applied to the 4th respondent for issuance of pattedar pass book and title deed under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act,1971 (for short, ‘the Act’).

5. The then Tahsildar, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak district (the 4th respondent) issued pattedar pass books and title deeds to petitioners in 2004 vide orders dated 15.10.2004 bearing Nos. 262439 to 262441.

6. One year eight months later, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad addressed a letter No. D/10260/05 on 12.06.2006 to the 3rd respondent that as per directions of the District Collector, Medak, he enquired the matter after assuming charge as Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad and found glaring mistakes committed by his predecessor; that petitioners played fraud upon the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, produced forged documents, and without producing relevant records to show that they are connected or concerned with Dr. Naidu, obtained pattedar pass books and title deeds by misrepresentation; that this fraud was detected on 10.06.2006; and therefore, he was filing an appeal under the Act before the 3rd respondent under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules framed under the Act to cancel the mutation affected in the name of petitioners; that the said report be treated as an appeal against the orders passed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheeerabad on 15.10.2004; and that the said Appeal is filed within time from the date of detection of fraud and mistake.

7. On receipt of this report from the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent treated it as an appeal under Rule 21 (2) and issued notices to petitioners directing them to show on what basis they were claiming the properties in question when the lands were recorded in the name of Dr. Naidu as pattedar and possessor in the Revenue Records.

8. Reply was filed to the said show-cause notice on 21.06.2006 by petitioners stating that Dr. Naidu was also called Dr. E.B. Christian and he had purchased the land from the Nizam Government in 1935 and was in possession since then. They questioned on what basis the Government was claiming the property when petitioners have become absolute owners and heirs and even by virtue of adverse possession. They relied on the Will dated 09.03.1960 executed by Dr. E.B. Christian alias Dr. Naidu bequeathing the property to them.

9. The counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the petitioners did not play any fraud on the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad to obtain the pattedar pass book and title deeds as alleged, and that there was no documentary evidence to show that the land belongs to the Government since the petitioners were in possession for a very long time. He stated that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad after going through the records and scrutiny and verification issued the pattedar pass book and title deed to the petitioners and relied upon the Pahanies for the period 1960-61 to 2000-01, and sought dismissal of the appeal.

10. By order dated 15.07.2006, the 3rd respondent allowed the appeal, and set aside the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad on 15.10.2004 as well as t