JUDGMENT

A Abhishek Reddy, J. - The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the Joint Collector-2nd respondent herein in entertaining a revision under Section 9 of The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'ROR Act'), filed by the 5th respondent herein.

2. The brief facts of the case are, that originally one Irfan Khan was the owner and possessor of the land bearing Survey No.230 of Yedhira Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District, for an extent of Acs.18.23 gts. and in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the name of one K.Venkanna was shown as protected tenant in respect of the said land. After the death of the protected tenant K.Venkanna, his wife K.Nagamma, in turn, was declared as legal heir of the protected tenant and after following the due procedure contemplated under Section 38-A of The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'Tenancy Act'), the then Revenue Divisional Officer has granted Certificate vide order dated 04.05.2002 in File No.K/1556/2001. Thereafter, the District Wakf Committee, Mahaboobnagar, filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, under Section 90 (1) of the Tenancy Act. In the said appeal, the petitioners were arrayed as respondents 11 to 16. Vide order, dated 21.04.2009, the Joint Collector has dismissed the appeal filed by the District Wakf Committee, Mahaboobnagar, and the same became final as no appeal or revision was preferred assailing the orders of the Joint Collector. Thereafter, the property was sold to the petitioners herein through registered sale deed and their names were also mutated in the revenue records; pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to them, after following due procedure. The District Wakf Committee claiming to be the owner of various extents of land in various survey numbers of Yedhira Village and other villages, including the subject land also, filed suit in O.S.No.25 of 1985 before the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, vide judgment and decree, dated 20.07.2006, the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, dismissed the said suit. Thereafter, the District Wakf Committee preferred a First Appeal being A.S.No.686 of 2008 before the High Court and the same is pending adjudication. It is pertinent to note that neither the petitioners herein nor their vendors nor the protected tenant nor the original pattadar Irfan Khan were made parties either to the said suit or the first appeal. The 5th respondent in the meanwhile has filed a Revision before the Joint Collector for cancellation of the entries made in the revenue records and pursuant to the same the Joint Collector has issued the notice impugned in this writ petition.

3. Heard both sides and perused the record.

4. Sri A.Giridhar Rao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has vehemently argued that entertaining the revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, at the instance of the 5th respondent, is not only illegal, but the same is arbitrary exercise of power not vested with the said authority and one without jurisdiction. It is contended that when the certificate issued under Section 38-A of the Tenancy Act has become final and the appeal preferred by the 5th respondent has been dismissed, the question of entertaining any revision under the provisions of the ROR Act does not arise. Further, the suit filed by the 5th respondent for declaration of title and perpetual injunction was dismissed and the First Appeal is pending before this Hon'ble High Court. He further contends that when the 5th respondent is not the owner of the property in dispute, entertaining the revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act does not arise. The issuance of present notice by the Joint Collector, at the instance of the 5th respondent, who do not have any title to the properties as on date, cannot be countenanced and the same is without jurisdiction or any legal basis.

5. Per contra,