ORDER :

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“…to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in passing orders vide Rc.No.3624/2015-A dated 07.01.2016 basing on the representation given by the respondent No.5 requesting him to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners and consequential orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Revision Petition vide D.Dis.No.1003/2016-D5, dated 11.12.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the ROR Act and the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.21689 of 1999 and consequently set aside the same…..….”

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are owners and possessors of the lands in an extent of Ac.6-26 cents in D.No.5-1, Ac. 4-76 cents in D.No.35, Ac. 7-65 cents in D.No.36, Ac.0-29 cents in D.No.6 and Ac.3-70 cents in D.No.7, in total an extent of Ac.22-66 cents in Mannesultanpalem village, Bellamkonda Mandal, Guntur District, which was purchased by their father from rightful owner Kasiraju Ramachandra Anjaneya Sharma on 02.01.1983. Consequent to death of their father in the year 1994, their names were mutated in the revenue records and the revenue authorities issued patttadar passbook and title deeds in their favour. It is their further case that when the 5th respondent with the help of 3rd and 4th respondents tried to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the subject lands, they filed injunction suit vide O.S.No.162 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapally to restrain the defendants from manipulating the revenue records and the said suit was dismissed on 01.05.2017 holding that the 5th respondent approached the revenue authorities for the same grievance and the authorities passed orders dated 07.01.2016.

It is the further case of the petitioners that, during pendency of the suit filed by them, the 5th respondent, alleging that he had purchased the property, made a representation to the authorities to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners and the 3rd respondent, without hearing them, cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in their favour in relation to Sy.No.5/1A to an extent of Ac.4-26 cents, Sy.No.35 to an extent of Ac.4-76 cents and Sy.No.36 to an extent of Ac.7-65 cents, vide proceedings in Rc.No.3624/2015-A, dated 07.01.2016. It is the further case of the petitioners that, the 3rd respondent ought not to have entertained the representation of the 5th respondent for the reasons that the same was not an appeal filed in the prescribed format and the same was not filed within 30 days from the date of issuance of the pattadar passbooks in the year 2003. Thus, the order passed by the 3rd respondent is highly illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

It is the further case of the petitioners that, they had preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent against the orders passed by the 3rd respondent on 07.01.2016 contending that there are serious disputes with regard to title over the property and the authorities cannot adjudicate the same and the said revision was dismissed on the premise that the civil Court had confirmed the title of the 5th respondent and two other persons whose pattadar passbooks were cancelled have not preferred revision. It is their further case that, the civil Court did not give any finding with regard to the title to the property and the said suit was dismissed on the ground that the 5th respondent availed alternative remedy. Thus, the findings of the 2nd respondent are highly illegal and exhibits non-application of mind. It is the further case of the petitioners that, the impugned order is prima facie not