ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 in WP No. 3456 of 2021.

2. Since the issue in these writ petitions and the prayer sought are same, both the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.

3. According to petitioners, each of them have purchased land to an extent of Acs. 2.20 guntas in Survey Nos. 83UU and 83U respectively of Toopranpet Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri Bhongiri District, through registered sale deeds dated 14.5.1979. Their names were entered in the revenue records and were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Again on 19.7.2000, they were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Petitioners allege that in the year 1999-2000, the Tahsildar, Choutuppal Mandal, erroneously deleted their names from the revenue records from the above extent of land and inspite of several requests made, the same was not rectified. On 21.8.2020, they made representations to the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar to rectify the erroneous corrections made and to restore their names. Alleging that inspite of representations made on 21.8.2020, authorities have not acted on the request to delete wrong entries made in the revenue records against survey numbers mentioned above, these writ petition's are filed. Petitioners pray to declare the action of respondent authorities, particularly the Tahsildar, Choutuppal Mandal, respondent No. 4, in deleting their names by way of Amendment Register for the year 1999-2000 from pahani column basing on joint document (General Power of Attorney) dated 20.8.1988 to an extent of Acs. 5.00 of land without any reason, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

4. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions and the prayers in the writ petitions, on the face of them, look very innocuous, genuine and simple prayer sought is not acting on the representations submitted by the petitioners as amounting to illegal exercise of power by the Tahsildar. It appears as an innocent projection of illegal deletion of names of petitioners behind their back, without following due process affecting their valuable right to property. As projected in the writ petitions, except the issue of delay, everything appears bona fide. However, as the facts unravel from the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application for impleadment as respondent No. 5 and the documents placed on record in IA No. 2 of 2021, it is astonishing to note as to how the petitioners sought to mislead this Court on facts and law with vicious intent to obtain orders behind the back of persons in whose favour the right vested long ago.

5. The documents placed on record by 5th respondent demystifies the claim of petitioners. The facts as now revealed are as under.

6. One Venkat Laxama Reddy was the Jagirdar of agricultural land in Survey No. 83 of Toopranpet Village to an extent of Acs. 20.05 guntas. Y. Lingaiah claimed that he and Chenchala Muthaiah became shikmi pattadar by way of cultivation from 1945. Lingaiah was cultivating land to an extent of Acs. 10.02 guntas and Chenchala Muthaiah and Mallaiah family were cultivating land to an extent of Acs. 10.03 guntas. Ijardar offered to sell the land occupied by Y Lingaiah. But, Y. Lingaiah did not have means to accept the offer to purchase the said land; he left the village and was out of village for 10 to 15 years. During that period, Busani Bixapathi purchased land to an extent of Acs. 5.02 guntas out of Acs. 10.02 guntas of land earlier offered to Y. Lingaiah. Remaining Acs. 5.00 of land was occupied by Komerisetti Venkataiah. However, after returning to the village, Y. Lingaiah regained the possession on land to an extend of Acs. 5.00 and was in occupation and enjoyment of the land. In other words, there were two different parcels of land in Sy. No. 83; (1) Acs. 5.02 and (2) Acs. 5.00.

7. Lingaiah execu