IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the Revenue Divisional Officer's authority to treat an application as an appeal and the requirement for parties to follow the prescribed appeal procedures under the Act and Rules.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“......to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in considering the appeal as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order dated 17.03.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Case No. D2/104/2011...”

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1 The claim of the petitioners is that the petitioners along with others inherited agricultural lands in Survey Nos. 2852 and 2854 situated at Nizamabad to an extent of Acs. 2.1 guntas and Acs. 1.11 guntas respectively to the total extent of Acs. 3.12 guntas. The said lands were owned and possessed by Sri Katike Mohinuddin S/o Laxmanji as per the revenue records and Khasra Pahani for 1954-55. Katike Mohinuddin died in the year 1962 leaving behind his two sons namely Miryalkar Bada Sab @ Bajrang and Miryalkar Ramji and both expired in the years 1974 and 1986 respectively leaving behind their children and grandchildren. The original owner and pattadar had four brothers namely Miryalkar Khaloji, Miryalkar Gangoji, Miryalkar Laxmanji and Miryalkar Kishanji all sons of Laxmanji.

2.2 It is further submitted that the above said land is recorded in revenue records in the name of Katike Mohinuddin as owner and pattadar, however in the year 2004, the said land got mutated in favour of Miryalkar Kishanji S/o Laxmanji, who is one of the brothers of Katike Mohinuddin. The application of mutation under ROR was filed and the same was effected and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to Miryalkar Kishanji without issuing any notice to the petitioners who are the legal heirs and without conducting any enquiry.

2.3 The petitioners immediately after knowing that mutation was sanctioned in the year 2004 in favour of Miryalkar Kishanji, approached respondent No. 1 and submitted application on 19.12.2009 requesting to conduct enquiry about mutation of Acs. 3.28 guntas in the name of unofficial respondents and take appropriate steps for deletion of the revenue entries and also for cancellation of the pattadar pass books and title deeds and take appropriate action with regard to mutation of the unofficial respondents’ names in the revenue records in respect of Acs. 3.12 guntas in Survey No. 2852 and 2854 and cancel the title deeds and pattadar pass books issued in favour of the unofficial respondents. Basing on the said representation, respondent No. 1 directed respondent No. 3 to conduct enquiry and submit report. Pursuant to the same, respondent No. 3 after conducting enquiry submitted detailed enquiry report vide Proc. No. A5/72816/2009 dated 29.12.2009 for cancelling the revenue mutation in favour of the unofficial respondents. Taking into consideration of the above said report, respondent No. 1 after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4 and 5 and after conducting detailed enquiry and after hearing both the parties passed order on 21.12.2010 vide Case No. A3/269/2010 by setting aside the mutation proceedings issued by respondent No. 3 vide No. ROR/NZB-III/24/2004 dated 18.12.2004 and remitted the matter to respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate orders, after giving notice and opportunity to both the parties.

2.4. Aggrieved by the said order, unofficial respondent No. 5 filed revision petition before respondent No. 2 and the revisional authority without verifying the records allowed the revision on 17.03.2012 vide Case No. D2/104/2011 and passed cryptic order without giving any reasons and aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioners filed this present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri D. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel representing Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, learned counsel, representing Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, appearing for respondent No. 4 and Sr