ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, and Mr D.Jaipal Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 6 and 7.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings bearing No.75/2015 issued by the 3rd respondent dated 29.09.2016 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.8 gts in Survey No.236/A of Kannapur Haveli, Khammam as illegal, improper, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and consequently set aside the same by directing the 5th respondent to continue the name of the petitioner against the land to an extent of Ac.2.8 gts in Survey No.236/A of Kannapur Haveli, Khammam.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

a) The father of the Petitioner i.e., Bajjuri Narayana purchased the land to an extent of Ac.2-08Gts., in Sy.No.236/A of Kannapur Haveli, Khammam Town and District under registered document No. 1942/1979 from Shaik Mir Mohinudin, who purchased the said land from its original pattadar under registered document No.378 of 1966 dated 05.02.1966 and later the vendor of the petitioner’s father name was mutated in the Revenue records as such Shaik Mir Mohinudin is the pattadar of the subject land.

b) The children of the original pattadar Shaik Mir Mohinudin filed O.S.No.22 of 1980 questioning the Sale Deed executed by their father in favour of the petitioners’ father herein. The said suit was dismissed on 11.02.2002. Against the said judgment they preferred A.S.No.1102 of 2002 before this Court and the same was withdrawn as the matter settled out of the Court on 27.02.2007.

c) After the dismissal of A.S.No.1102 of 2002 the petitioners herein approached the 5th Respondent for mutation of the subject land on their name and also to conduct the survey and fix the boundary. However, the 5th Respondent did not act upon the petitioner’s application. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.28066 of 2009 which was disposed on 04.02.2010 directing the 5th Respondent therein to conduct the survey and fix the boundaries as well as to take the steps to mutate the name of the Petitioner against the subject land.

d) However, the 5th Respondent did not act upon the orders, and, issued a Memo denying the ownership of the petitioners as well as possession over the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner filed contempt case No.1744 of 2011 against the 5th Respondent. The 5th respondent herein informed the Court that the application filed by the Petitioner is not under the format as prescribed under ROR Act. While referring the same, the contempt case was closed directing the Petitioner to make an application as per the format prescribed for mutation of their names against the subject land.

e) After filing of the application by the Petitioner, the 5th Respondent issued a Memo rejecting the petitioners’ request on the ground that survey cannot be conducted unless pattadar passbooks and ROR proceedings are produced. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed an appeal No.A3/4722/2012 under ROR Act 1971 and the same was considered. After conducting detailed enquiry and report dated 12.12.2012 from the Tahsildar an order was passed directing the 5th Respondent to consider judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court for implementation and mutating the names of the Petitioner against the subject land. Subsequently, the Petitioners’ name was recorded in revenue records against the subject land.

f) Respondents 6 and 7 herein claiming that they are the owners of the land in Sy.No.236/E tried to interfere into the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners herein. Subsequently, the Petitioners filed an O.S.No.585 of 2013 before the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam and obtained an Ad-interim Injunction a