The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide jurisdiction of the Collector under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1971 to examine the regularity, correctness, legality, or propriety of any decision, order, or proceedings.

JUDGMENT

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Sri B. Abhay Jain, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents 1 to 3.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the orders in Reference LRDT/1600/2009, dtd. 1/2/2010, passed by the respondent No.2 and the consequential orders in D.Dis.(E.3)/958/2010, dtd. 20/3/2013, passed by the respondent No.1-Joint Collector under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short "the Act, 1971") read with the A.P. Rights in Pattadar and Pass Book Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules, 1989").

3. The petitioner's case is that she being landless poor, on her application, was granted the land in an extent of Ac.4.51 cents in Sy.No.542/1 of Tippaiahpalli Village, Pullampet Mandal, Y.S.R. District by way of allotment in the year 1980. The revenue records were also mutated in her name and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in the year 1995. The 4th respondent viz., Marripalli Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Venkata Ramaiah filed some complaint inter alia on the allegations that the subject land was assigned in her favour through D.K.T. Patta No.2823/70 dtd. 10/6/1970 and the pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued mistakenly in favour of the petitioner. The 4th respondent requested to issue pattadar pass book and the title deeds in her favour.

4. On the complaint of the 4th respondent, report from Tahsildar was called which was submitted and on perusal thereof, the Revenue Divisional Officer-2nd respondent cancelled the pattadar passbook which was in favour of the petitioner and further directed the Tahsildar to submit the proposals for grant of duplicate pattadar passbooks/title deeds in favour of the 4th respondent/the original assignee. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is dtd. 1/2/2010. The petitioner filed the revision under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1971. The Joint Collector set aside the proceedings of the order dtd. 1/2/2010 and directed the Tahsildar to resume the land and incorporate the changes in the revenue records and also to take necessary action for fresh assignment to the eligible beneficiaries as per rules in force.

5. The petitioner's revision was dismissed. However, the order dtd. 1/2/2010, in favour of the 4th respondent was also set aside vide order dtd. 20/3/2013.

6. The Joint Collector-1st respondent did not accept the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the 4th respondent which was accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer-2nd respondent directing the Tahsildar-3rd respondent to submit the proposal in favour of the 4th respondent as original assignee, was also rejected. The Joint Collector concluded that neither the appellant nor the respondents (i.e the petitioner and 4th respondent) produced any documentary evidence to show that the land in question was enjoyed by them ever before. There was no proof that the 4th respondent was the original assignee. She was also not residing in the village. The Joint Collector arrived at the conclusion, on perusal of records that, both (Petitioner and the 4th respondent) were trying to grab the Government land by misleading the revenue authorities.

7. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. The 4th respondent did not challenge the order.

9. The present writ petition was dismissed against the 4th respondent for default of the petitioner in complying with the court"s order dtd. 11/4/2017, in terms thereof.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass order dtd. 1/2/2010 on the complaint of the 4th respondent. The Revenue Divisional Officer could not entertain the same as an appal against the order of assignment vide D.K.T.No.2823/70 dtd. 10/6/1970, as under Sec. 5(5) of the Act, 1971 th