ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in initiating Suo-Moto Revision vide show cause Notice CCLAs Ref.No.VI/68/2010, Dt.13.07.2010 and subsequent notices issued under Sec.14-A of A.P.(A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 for modification of the Ryotwari patta issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Parvathipuram on 06.09.1960 without having power/Jurisdiction and also in violation of order, dt.24.02.2009 in W.P.No.16002 of 2002, as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice unreasonable and violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to delete the petitioner Agricultural land to an extent of Ac.25.25 Cents of Dry land in Sy.No.191 of Salur Village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of Registration Act 1908…”

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that, the 2nd respondent in initiating suo moto revision by issuing show cause notice vide CCLA’s Ref.No.VI/68/2010, dated 13.07.2010 and subsequent notice issued under Section 14-A of the A.P. (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 for modification of ryotwari patta issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Parvathipuram on 06.09.1960, without having power/jurisdiction and also in violation of order, dated 24.02.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16002 of 2002. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The 5th respondent/Tahsildar filed counter denying the allegations inter alia contending that the 2nd respondent/Commissioner has revisional powers under Section 14-A of the A.P. (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 to entertain at any time either suo moto or an application made to it, call for and examine the records relating to any proceedings taken in this regard for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the regularity or corrections, legality or property of the proceedings and if it appears that such orders should be modified, annulled, revised etc. may pass orders accordingly. The respondents also filed W.A.No.40249 of 2011 against the orders, dated 24.02.2009 in W.P.No.16002 of 2002 and the same is pending. The 2nd respondent has revisional powers to review the decision taken by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inam) Parvathipuram, dated 16.09.1960 and the writ petitioners have right to defend their interest by appearing before the 2nd respondent. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri G.Gopala Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Parvathipuram has issued ryotwari patta on 06.09.1960 in favour of the petitioners’ father, which is placed on record and draw the attention of this Court. Pursuant to the request made for mutation of the revenue records, the Sub Collector recommended for the same vide D.Dis.No.5414/1988, dated 17.09.1988, which is also placed on record and draw the attention of this Court to the same but as the authorities have not considered, the original pattadars made a representation to the Joint Collector, wherein the Joint Collector refused for mutation of their names in the revenue records, vide endorsement, dated 18.06.2002. Aggrieved by the same, they filed W.P.No.16002 of 2002 wherein this Court, quashed the said endorsement and directed the respondents therein to implement the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioners therein, by its order dat