Point of law: As per Section 9 of the ROR Act, any person aggrieved by the orders passed by the RDO had a remedy by way of filing a revision before the Joint Collector/Additional Collector.

ORDER :

A. Abhishek Reddy, J.

1. Heard Ms. K. Hemalatha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Sri Karanam Ramesh, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under Section 5(b) of The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, (in short 'ROR Act'), canceling the mutation proceedings already issued in favour of the petitioner herein.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the unofficial respondent i.e. respondent No. 5 has filed the appeal after a lapse of more than 10 years and the RDO without appreciating the facts of the case in proper perspective has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that it is the case of the petitioner that originally one Md. Jahangir was the owner of the land in survey No. 687 admeasuring Ac. 1-20 guntas situated at Manchal Village and that the petitioner has purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 4796/2009, dated 16.09.2009. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) vide File No. B/4589/2009 dated 21.10.2009 has passed mutation orders in favour of the petitioner and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued. When the vendors of the respondent No. 5 tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, she was constrained to file a suit before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and the same was numbered as. O.S. No. 56 of 2012. The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, vide judgment and decree, dated 24.09.2019, has decreed the suit filed by the petitioner. The RDO without appreciating the material facts of the case has passed the impugned order which runs contrary to the judgment of the civil Court and the impugned order literally amounts to re-writing the judgment passed by the competent civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the RDO, based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, has passed the impugned order without serving a copy of the report on the petitioner or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to counter the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the impugned order was passed by the RDO on the verge of his retirement under the influence of respondent No. 5 and has prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the RDO.

4. Respondent No. 5 has filed counter denying the material averments made in the writ petition, but has also stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of facts, for filing a false affidavit, alternative and efficacious remedy of Revision and lastly, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for filing a false affidavit before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for R.5 has stated that the ex parte judgment and decree, dated 24.09.2019, obtained by the petitioner was set aside by the Hon'ble Additional Junior Civil Judge, on a petition being filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code by the vendors of R.5, and the petitioner was aware of passing of the order setting aside the judgment and decree, as on the date of filing the writ petition, yet she has filed a false statement stating that the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2019 has become final. Learned counsel for R.5 has further stated that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy by way of filing a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act before the Joint Collector, but for the reasons best known to her, she has filed the present writ petition by suppressing the material facts and also filed a false affidavit before this Court. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is liable to be punished for perjury and has prayed this Court not only to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petit