ORDER:

The petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the Revision Rc.No.211/2017-D5, dated 26.10.2019 by confirming the order of the 3rd respondent passed in appeal Rc.No.7246/2016-A, dated 26.12.2016 as illegal and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) and for a consequential order setting aside the impugned revision order passed by the 2nd respondent.

2. Petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

(a) Petitioner’s husband late Shaik Ahmed purchased an extent of Acres 0.50 cents in Survey No.1114 of Ankireddypalem Village, Guntur District from 4th respondent under unregistered agreement to sell dated 09.05.1983 and obtained possession of the said property. He got mutated his name in the revenue records and paid land revenue to the Government since 1984 and he used to cultivate the said land as an absolute owner. Her further case is that Shaik Ahmed died on 03.11.2003 leaving behind the petitioner and her children Sk.Baji, Sk.Ibrahim and Sk.Mabu Subhani and also the land covered by agreement to sell and other properties.

(b) Subsequently, the petitioner and her children partitioned their joint family properties by way of registered partition deed vide Document No.2118/2012, dated 02.03.2012 and during such partition, the subject property of Acres 0.50 cents fell to her share and that she became the absolute owner and successor of the said property. She has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said land. Petitioner’s son applied for survey of the said land and though Mandal Surveyor conducted survey on 14.03.2012, did not file any report.

(c) While so, the 4th respondent filed an appeal Rc.No.7246/2016- A, for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed issued in the name of the husband of the petitioner after lapse of 33 years. Said appeal was allowed by the 3rd respondent on 26.12.2016 cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deed and in the said order, the 3rd respondent advised the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to settle her title dispute. Aggrieved by the said, the petitioner filed revision vide Rc.No.211/2017-D5, before 2nd respondent and said revision was dismissed on 26.10.2019 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent without considering the vital facts and the documents of the petitioner most importantly the possession of the subject land by the petitioner’s family over more than three decades.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. In spite of direction of this Court, the petitioner did not take notice to 4th respondent.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, representing respondents 1 to 3.

5. The main plan of argument of counsel for the petitioner is that both the appellate and revisional authorities have miserably failed to consider the documentary evidence and long possession of the petitioner’s family in respect of subject land in proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the appeal and revision respectively. In expatiation, he would submit that the petitioner’s husband Shaik Ahmed purchased an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in S.No.1114 of Ankireddypalem village from 4th respondent under an unregistered agreement of sale dated 09.05.1983 and ever since, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and during his lifetime Shaik Ahmed’s name was mutated in the revenue records in respect of subject land and he was paying land revenue. After his death, the petitioner and her sons have enjoyed the said property and in a family partition under a registered partition deed bearing document No.2118 of 2012 dated 02.03.2012 among the petitioner and her sons, the petitioner got the subject and ever since, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He would further argue that without considering these facts, the authorities bel