IMPORTANT POINT
The delay in challenging mutation and regularization proceedings, as well as the absence of challenge to said proceedings, can bar a petitioner from seeking relief. Lack of evidence of possession can also weaken a petitioner's case.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Sri Y.Randheer, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.8 and 9.

2. The subject matter of this Writ Petition is the land admeasuring Acs.3.11 gts., situated in Sy.Nos.39, 39/A, 39/3, 79/A, 79/AA, and 79/A2 of Palvancha Revenue Village, Palvancha Mandal, Khammam District, presently in Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana State.

3. It is the case of the petitioner herein that his father was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land and his name was mutated in the Revenue records and on his demise in the year 1970, the subject land was succeeded by the petitioner being the sole successor-in-interest. As he was residing elsewhere, the subject land is being cultivated by his relatives namely Devabakthuni Venkateswara Rao and Devabakthuni Vedavathi and they have been accounting for the yield of the crop every year to the petitioner. It is the further case that in the month of May, 2008, the petitioner approached the Bank Authorities for the purpose of availing the loan and on their insistence, the petitioner made an attempt to obtain copies of the Pahanies and then realized that the names of Devabakthuni Venkateswara Rao and respondent No.9 have been mutated in the Revenue records as pattadar and possessor since the years 1989-1990 onwards, though they do not have any right and title over the subject land. It is also the case of the petitioner that neither his father during his lifetime nor the petitioner herein sold the subject land in favour of the said two persons at any point of time, but they got their names mutated in the Revenue records by playing fraud and by fabrication of records. Thus, contending the same, the petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971') on 21/1/2009, before respondent No.5 herein seeking rectification of the entries in the Pahanies and for removing the names of the said two persons and to enter the name of the petitioner in the pattadar column. The said appeal was rejected by respondent No.5 by an order in ROR appeal No.B/517/2009, dtd. 25/5/2013, on the ground of limitation and relegated the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein instead of taking steps against the said order, dtd. 25/5/2013, submitted a representation, dtd. 18/6/2015 i.e., almost after a lapse of two years before respondent No.2 herein seeking cancellation of the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the said two persons. The said representation was rejected by respondent No.2 by issuing Memo Rc.No.E3/2348/15, dtd. 31/3/2016, informing the petitioner that the petitioner has to take steps against the order dtd. 25/5/2013 passed by respondent No.5 by filing a Revision Petition under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1971. Thereafter, on 19/4/2016 the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1971, against the order, dtd. 25/5/2013, passed by respondent No.5. The said Revision Petition was disposed of by an order, dtd. 29/9/2016, on various grounds including the ground of delay and relegated the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of grievance over the title. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.

4. Respondent Nos.8 and 9 are the persons who are making a rival claim over the subject land. Respondent No.8 is wife of the said late Devabakthuni Venkateswara Rao. It is the case of respondent Nos.8 and 9 that the subject land was purchased by their respective fathers during their lifetime from the father of the petitioner herein under a Sada Sale Deed and the said sale was subsequently regularized under Sec. 5A of the Act, 1971 and a certificate under Sec. 13B of the Act, 1971, was issued in their favour and thereafter, on th