ORDER

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“….to issue Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in R.P.No.D2/1582/2013 dt 01.01.2015 reversing the order of the 3rd respondent in D.Dis.C/595/2012 Dt 17.05.2013 and Set aside the same as it is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and provisions of AP Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and Rules…”

When the matter came up for admission, this Court passed an Interim Order on 02.02.2015, which is as follows:

„Petitioner claims that she is entitled to a share of the property on the demise of her father by way of succession. Considering the fact that the name of the petitioner was found in the revenue records up to 1994, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall not create any charge, mortgage or alienation, pending disposal of the main writ petition‟

Heard Sri.P.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

The main grievance of the learned counsel for petitioner that the 2nd respondent without having any jurisdiction entertained the appeal filed by the unofficial respondents No. 5 and 6 and passed Impugned order without having any jurisdiction.

On the other hand, at the time of hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted written instructions of Tahsildar, Karamchedu vide Rc.DT/177/2022, dated 08.11.2022 stating that aggrieved by the Orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole in D.Dis.C5/595/2012, dated 17.05.2012, the unofficial respondents No.5 and 6 filed a Revision Petition before the Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. On that after conducting enquiry into the matter, the 2nd respondent has allowed the Revision Petition vide orders in R.P.No.D2/1582/2013 dated 01.01.2015 by setting aside the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole. Aggrieved by the said Orders instead of filing appeal before the Collector, Ongole CCLA, AP., and thereafter before the Government, the petitioner, approached this Court, which is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the Writ petition.

As seen from the above and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that, against the Order passed by the third respondent, a revision lies to the Collector, under Section 9 of the Act, which reads as follows:

„ Revision. - The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy

himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation.

and also in view of the law declared by High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in T. Santosh Kumar v. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar 1and Suseela Bai v. Joint Collector, Adilabad District2.

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, this Court thinks it appropriate to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent vide R.P.No.D2/1582/2013 dated 01.01.2015 on the point of jurisdiction, leaving it open to the Tahsildar, Karamchedu, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District, to proceed further in pursuance of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, vide D.Dis.C5/595/2012, dated 17.05.2012.

1 . 2014 (6) ALT 51 2 . 2014 (6) ALT 42

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if