ORDER :

1. The petitioners invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly prayed for issuance of order, direction or writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of District Revenue Officer, Warangal, Warangal District, 1st respondent issued in Rc. No. E3/H5/180/2001, dated 3-9-2002 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

2. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, District Revenue Officer, Warangal, Warangal District is challenged on various grounds. Before I consider the question as to the validity of the impugned order, it may be relevant to notice a few facts leading to filing of this writ petition.

3. The petitioners are joint owners and possessors of land bearing Survey No. 1061 admeasuring Ac. 1-37 gts. situated at Himmathnagar Village, Zaffergadh Mandal of Warangal District. The petitioners claim that they purchased the land from the legal heirs of one Bommera Narsaiah in 1994. The names of the petitioners after their purchase and their vendors names earlier (there) to are recorded as pattadars and possessors in all revenue records, ever since 1978. Pannala Shyam Sunder Reddy 3rd respondent submitted an application before the District Revenue Officer, Warangal, 1st respondent claiming that the lands were purchased by his father from pattadar Bommera Narsaiah in 1951. Therefore, he sought deletions of petitioners' names from the Occupancy Column of the pahanies and inclusion of his name for the years 1994–1995, 1997–1998 and 1998–1999. The writ petitioners claimed that their names are recorded under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and thus the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction under Section 166-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli to pass orders in respect of correction of entries in the Revenue records. According to the petitioners, if the proceedings passed by the 1st respondent are allowed to stand, it would result in far reaching consequences adversely affecting their existing right and interest in respect of land. Thus, the petitioners filed this writ petition with the prayer stated supra.

4. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit and it is in brief as follows:

5. The petitioners are never in possession of the land to an extent of Ac. 1-37 guntas in Survey No. 1061 situated at Himmathnagar village, Zafferghad Mandal, Warangal District. He filed an application before the 1st respondent for correction of entries wrongly recorded in the pahanies. The 1st respondent has called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer 2nd respondent and found that the entries made in favour of the petitioners in respect of Survey No. 1061 are irregular and accordingly, ordered for deletion of the names of the petitioners in the revenue record for the years 1994–1995, 1997–1998, 1998–1999. Since, the order passed by the 1st respondent was after due enquiry and based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the same is not to be required to be interfered in the writ petition. Petitioners filed the writ petition after more than two years questioning the impugned order dated 3-9-2002 and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. He filed a suit O.S. No. 1684 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Warangal against the petitioners for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the land in dispute. He also filed I.A. No. 2794 of 2004 seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court granted interim injunction in his favour and the same is subsisting. The petitioners instead of contesting the suit filed this writ petition. The petitioners can establish the fact of their being in possession of the land in the trial Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned