Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (TG) for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6.

2. Respondents 4 to 6 and one other person filed revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 (Act, 1971) before the Joint Collector, Vikarabad District praying to carryout corrections of illegal entry in the old ROR of 1979-80 in respect of land in Sy.No.1145 to an extent of Ac.9.18 guntas of Dudyal Village of Bomraspet Mandal by deleting the name of late Abdul Hameed. Revision petitioners contended that one Babu Rao is the original owner of the above land and he sold the same to the father of the revision petitioners through sale deed dated 29.02.1950. In Khasra pahani 1954-55, the name of father of revision petitioners was recorded as purchaser and in subsequent years name of their father recorded as owner and pattadar. In the year 1983, Government issued pattadar pass books in the name of their father. In support of their contention that they are owners, they have also stated that in the year, 1973 their father obtained loan from the Land Mortgage Bank (LMB) to dig open bore-well. According to them, for the first time in 1979-80 old ROR, name of father of respondents was recorded without any file number, proceedings number and without mention of document or decree of Civil Court as source to undertake such exercise.

3. Detailed contentions were urged respectively. Suffice to note that, respondents before the revisional authority (petitioners herein) opposed the claim of revision petitioners (respondents 4 to 6 herein) primarily on the ground that there was no sale as claimed by them and it was a false document. It was further contended that if there was un-registered sale deed, they would have got the same regularized and obtained certificate under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Act, 1950). As no such certificate was obtained, entire claim of revision petitioners falls to ground.

4. On extensive consideration of rival claims, the Joint Collector noticed that in P.T. Register of Dudyal village for the year 1950-51, name of Smt. Srishasani Bogum was shown as pattadar and Chinthakindi Veerappa (through whom respondents 4 to 6 claim passing on title to them) was shown as protected tenant. In the Sethwar for the year 1351 Fasli of Bomraspet village, the subject land was classified as Sarkari (patta) with the Khatedar name Srishasani Bogum. In the year 1954-55, Srishasani Bogum was shown as pattadar and Chinthakindi Veerappa was shown as occupant of land by way of purchasers. He was also shown as protected tenant and actual cultivator of the land. According to Joint Collector, the entries made in the year 1954-55 continued up to the pahani of 1978-79 and only in the pahani of 1979-80, name of Chinthakindi Veerappa was deleted and name of Mohd. Moulana was recorded as pattadar. The same was also reflected in the pahanies of 1987-88, 1990-91 onwards. In possession column of pahanies for the years 1990-91, 1998-99 and 2009-10, names of respondents were recorded as occupants, whereas in pahanies for the year 1982-83, 1987-88, 1996-97, 2002-03, 2005-06, 2006-07, possession column is kept blank. He also noticed that in the year 2009-10 pahani, land is divided among respondents before him in equal shares claiming as successors of late Mohd. Moulana. According to the Joint Collector, it is not known how respondents or their late father Moulana are related to original pattadar; not filed any documentary evidence to show that it was ancestral property and they have acquired rights by virtue of succession. According to the Joint Collector, name of father of respondents was unauthorizedly recorded as pattadar in the ROR Register of 1979-80 and pahanies of 1979-80, 1982-83 etc., without any documentary evidence and no file number is ment